Violence and Video Games

Author: Joshua Pike

Violence has been a form of entertainment in human civilization since ancient times. A prime example was the Roman gladiator, who would fight to the death for the amusement of the crowd. In more modern times, mainstream violent entertainment has slipped from the real world onto the television screen. A recent advancement of this entertainment has been the video game, turning observer into participant. With recent significant advances in gaming technology, this violence has been able to assume more explicit and striking forms, enhancing the experience.

However, the very presence of violence in video games has sparked the concern of many people, mainly psychologists and parents. They believe that the element of interactivity allows the violence depicted to leave a deeper imprint on the player. However, skeptics believe that the concern is irrational, and is backed up by unconvincing experimental data.
It is clear that there is division in the general community over whether violent video games can have a negative psychological effect on a person, specifically the induction of aggressive behavior.

What The Psychologists Say:
Many well-known psychologists know all too well that there is a big difference between watching something and doing it. There is a stark contrast between watching a movie where somebody gets shot, and actually pressing the button that ‘pulls the trigger’. It is this interactive component which prominent psychologist Dr. Karen Dill believes to have both fundamental and potentially dangerous psychological implications.

According to Dr. Dill’s research, violent video games may be more harmful than violent television and movies simply “because they are interactive” (American Psychological Association, 2000). The environment of the violent video game prompts the player to actively find solutions by utilizing violent means. This in turn appears to stimulate the centers of the brain related to aggression, and indirectly causes these centers to generally become more active (Alderson, 6). Although it appears to be quite a powerful claim, experimental data does exist to support this viewpoint.

One study implemented in Iowa State University was a survey conducted on 227 college students by a colleague of Dr. Dill’s, Dr. Craig Anderson. Students were asked to give information on any delinquency in the past, and also asked to describe their video game playing habits. The survey showed that the frequency of video game playing was positively correlated with higher rates of delinquency (American Psychological Association, 2000).

Another study conducted in a more scientific fashion was conducted by a group of psychiatrists, and involved having various children between the ages of 10 to 11 engaging in different activities, one of which was playing a violent video game. Afterwards, it was found that the children who played the violent games were more likely to choose a violent toy to play with as opposed to a non-violent toy (Kleinfield, B6).

The Reaction:
Experiments such as these raised concerns about what the data could imply, especially for habitually aggressive men or mentally unstable people, who would be vulnerable to this kind of stimulus. If these types of people were to have access to violent video games, there could be spin-offs that may cause these people to become more of a serious threat in real life. The violent themes in combination with the element of interactivity could spark a frame of mind that could be harmful to both the person in question and the people around him or her.

There is fierce opposition of the assault on violent video games, which is mainly held by youth, older veteran video gamers, and other skeptics, including some psychologists. They believe that to declare violence in video games as a threat to society would be both irrational and absurd. They claim that aside from a complete lack of tangible and consistent proof of this so-called ‘menace’, there are many important factors involved that are being ignored. They also lay blame to the media and parents for cultivating an almost phobic attitude towards violent video games.

The gaming community has been following the argument closely, retorting the negative claims that have been made about violent video games. A range of arguments have been presented, such as the claim that there is a bidirectional problem concerning the association of violent video games with aggression. Instead of violent video games invoking aggression, naturally aggressive people may instead be drawn to violent video games. The absurdity of this claim was targeted by gaming journalist Duke Ferris, who described an analogy to a person walking into an opera performance and assuming that opera causes the people who watch it to become richer and more classy (Game Revolution, 2005).

Other skeptics also believe that there is simply not enough proof to successfully support a mindset against violent video games. The validity of the aforementioned experiment with the children was challenged, for example. Later in that same experiment, the children were each asked to assign punishments to children to have done wrong. There was no noticeable difference in the results – the children who played violent video games dealt a punishment as harsh as the others (Kleinfield, B6).

Several solutions are being proposed by the different groups involved, from a complete banning of violent video games to placing the onus solely on the parent to regulate the child’s gaming habits. Although all games are rated by an international rating board, they do not carry as much seriousness as a movie of the same material. Stricter laws are being considered in some American states to control this, but there is still uncertainty of whether they will work.

Summary:
It can be seen that this is a debate that will rage for a long time, as strong and solid viewpoints are coming from all directions. Resolving the issue of the relation between violence in video games and aggression seems rather small compared to broader issues regarding violent media, but it will be vital in making steps to developing a safer and more learned society.