Major Analysis Project

Ashley Johnson
Major Analysis Project:
Are Violent Video Games the Cause of Violent Behavior?

The prominent attitude among the media is that video games are responsible for school shootings, low test scores, obesity and laziness. Like television and movies, video games have become a controversial issue, largely including debates surrounding their use of graphic violence, biased gender roles, and portrayal of criminal behavior. Along with this, video games have been studied for addiction and aggression among their players. At the same time, several research shows that video games are not to blame for these problems, and several groups argue that the video game industry has simply become an easy scapegoat for the modern day problems within society. Research on this side of the issue shows that video games actually benefit the player, providing for them useful skills and qualities, and makes the statement that it’s easy to criticize something you know nothing about. So, the question is, are video games the cause of violent behavior?

The debate over violent video games such as Resident Evil, Mortal Combat and God of War has grown largely since it began in 1999 after two students from Columbine high school in Littleton, Colorado planned and executed a shooting, killing 13 and injuring 24, and finally killing themselves. The issue became so large that it was even brought to the US Senate in 2000; this brought forth laws banning or restricting the sale of violent video games and enforcing rating upon them in several US states. The question is, are these video games really what’s to blame for violent behavior among adolescents and even adults? Or are we using them as a way of denying what’s really the case?

To better understand what is being examined in this essay, it is important to know what is meant by violence and aggression. We will define violence as an extreme form of aggression, such as physical assault and murder. All violence is aggression, but not all aggression is violence. Aggression is behavior intended to harm another individual who is motivated to avoid that harm. If is not an affect, emotion, or aggressive thought, plan or wish. This definition excludes accidental acts that lead to harm, such as losing control of an auto and accidentally killing a pedestrian, but includes behaviors intended to harm even if the attempt fails, such as when a bullet fired from a gun misses a human target. (Anderson and Bushman 354)

Using these exact definitions, Craig Anderson, Nicholas Carnagey and Brad Bushman review the research that has been accumulating slowly since the mid-1980s and argue that experimental studies prove that playing violent video games increases aggressive behavior in children and adults, but what seems to be a more original argument, and what no published study has ever actually examined before, is whether exposure to violent video games decreases physiological responsiveness to real life violence. Their experiment analyzes the physiological effects of heart rate and Galvanic Skin Response to violence in video games in relation to violence in real life. They argue that because video game violence occurs within a context in which rewards are granted, and exciting music is played, repetition of play in this context desensitizes the player due to repeated exposure to unrealistic outcomes of violence. They specifically point out that desensitized people are less likely to notice aggressive events, perceive fewer or less severe injuries, feel less sympathy towards violence victims, and have less negative attitudes towards violence.

To test their hypothesis the authors gathered a vast 257 subjects. First, they obtained each player’s heart rate and measured their Galvanic Skin Response as baseline measures, finding about 66 bpm for heart rate, which is relaxed. They instructed half of the subjects to play violent video games for 20 minutes, and the other half to play non-violent video games for 20 minutes. Because there is a lot of correlational research on this topic-- one could argue that violent video games make kids violent-- but could also argue that people that are already violent are drawn to violent video games-- the authors decided experimental research which provided equally exciting violent and non-violent games, demanding high involvement from the players was the only way to obtain accurate results. So, half of the players played violent games which were Mortal Combat, Duke Nukem, Carmageddon, and Future Cop. The non-violent games consisted of Glider Pro, 3D Pinball, 3D Munch Man, and Tetra Madness. After each half of the subjects were finished with their 20 minutes of playing time, their heart rates were expected to go up equally. Next, all 257 subjects were exposed to real-life violence-- shootings, court room outbursts, prison and police confrontation. There heart rate and Galvic Skin Response was measured while watching the real-life violence-- note that these were not actors, but it was real. The results showed that after playing the games, the players of both violent and non-violent games heart rates went up equally, and while watching the real violence, the people who played the non-violent game experienced a significant increase in heart rate, while the players of the violent game did not. This also happened with the Galvanic Skin Response measurements; those who played the non-violent video game experienced sweaty palms and changes in their Galvanic Skin Response, while the other half did not. These results seem to support their hypothesis.

The next text that will be examined is Big Ideas: Are video games good for you? by Akela Talamasca who claims that video games are not harmful; they are actively good for you. In his article, the author notes that video games are said to train hand eye coordination. More importantly, they the player to engage in problem solving which helps them outside of the game. Talamasca argues that people who play video games have a knack for exploring and trying things on their own. He uses the game “Civilization” as an example of how players can learn more factual information from game playing than they may learn in the classroom. He acknowledges the fact that nothing is like first-hand experience, but a lot of protocol can be absorbed through play-- repetition keeps skills fresh. Rehearsing actions in the mind makes the body become adept to applying and demonstrating them in real life. Having said all of this, the author argues that the most profound way that video games are helpful to players is in their cathartic properties; video games allow the player to take out their aggression and stress and release it in the game. He attempts to establish credibility by quoting the current Karmapa Lama in India Trinley Dorje, a spiritual leader of one of the largest sects of Tibetan Buddhism, who plays violent video games for just this reason. He quotes Dorje, who says, “So, for me sometimes it can be a relief, a kind of decompression to just play some video games. If I'm having some negative thoughts or negative feelings, video games are one way in which I can release that energy in the context of the illusion of the game. I feel better afterwards. The aggression that comes out in the video game satiates whatever desire I might have to express that feeling. For me, that's very skillful because when I do that I don't have to go and hit anyone over the head."

In his final point, the author responds to critics who say video games are the blame for violent behavior, saying that games are tools, and are no more accountable for the actions of the people who use them than any other tool is-- for example, you don’t blame the hammer for the alcoholism of the carpenter, of the drill for the abuse of the craftsman. He says that our responsibility is to use our tools to benefit all, and not to blame our personal shortcomings or faults on them. He says doing so does disservice to the actual intentions of the game designers, who “merely wanted to bring something enjoyable to the world.”

What is perhaps the most persuasive about this article is the author’s voice-- he is confident and sarcastic, yet is easy to relate to although he is describing something I myself don’t particularly know much about, which is an exact point he uses in developing his argument-- it is easy to criticize something you know nothing about.

Chandramita Bora‘s article Harmful Effects of Video Games can be considered a response to Talamusca‘s article, as both authors seem to use similar arguments to make different points. Bora argues that video games do contribute to violent behavior, saying that video games are perhaps the most significant source of entertainment for adolescents since the 70s, and that they have greater adverse effects on children than television and movies because they demand active participation of the player, effecting their behavior and psychology. While Talamusca argued that repetition keeps the players skills fresh and suggested it was a beneficial aspect of video game play, Bora agrees the repetition is the key to improved learning, so violent video game play is effective in instilling aggressive behavior in young children. Another point the author makes is that violence and aggression depicted in games, if practiced in the real world, can lead to serious injuries and even death. The author does take into consideration the idea that games can be used properly in improving hand-eye coordination, problem solving, logic, and quick thinking. She makes the final point that parents should play an important role to ensure that video games do not lead to any of these harmful effects. They can do this by limiting the amount of time played and by taking into account the rating of video games when purchasing them.

In 1993 a popular first-person shooter game called Doom was released, becoming a target for critics. It created fears among society that such games would teach kids to kill. In the years after its release, the Doom helped video gaming grow into a multibillion dollar industry. Along with this, came the school shootings in Paducah, Kentucky; Springfield , Illinois; and Littleton Colorado. In all three, media and press accounts emphasized that the shooters loved Doom, making it seem that the critic’s predictions about violent video games were proving to be true. (Sternheimer 13) However in the last text that will be analyzed, Karen Sternheimer, from the University of Southern California write that homicide arrests are down 77% since 1993. She also notes that school shootings are extremely rare, even during the 1990s when fears of violence were high, students had less than a 7 in 10 million chance of being killed at school. Sternheimer argues that society feels the need to find an alternative explanation for what seems unexplainable-- “the white, middle-class school shooter.” She argues that it is politicians and moral crusaders who create “folk devils,” which she defines as individuals or groups defined as evil and immoral; folk devils allow us to channel our blame and fear. However, as more violent games are being created and more people are playing the, crime rates are dropping, so the correlation between the two isn’t there.

Opponents of violent video games, or those who argue their harmful effects, seem to have one thing in common; the safety of the gamer and of society. Looking into whether or not violent video games desensitize a person’s physiological effects on real life violence can perhaps explain reasons for a person to even being able to commit a violent act; if there is no emotion or feeling involved, that’s a large weight off their shoulders and out of the way in feelings of guilt and anxiety. Others like Bora, who acknowledges the fact that video games in general can help the player obtain beneficial skills, would also say that the repetition that involves acquiring these skills is harmful when it comes to violence in video games because it can subconsciously become a normal for the player.

On the other hand, video games are seen to be not only a good source of learning and absorbing useful information in a fun way, but as an outlet for the exact actions opponents fear; video games allow the player to liberate stress, and even aggression. In this sense, the game is actually lessening the likelihood of aggression in the real world because it is letting you release it in the game. Statistics even show that the fears of sky-rocketing violent crime rates have not proven to succeed in light of the rapidly growing game industry.

It is important to know whether or not violent video games are harmful as a player, and as someone who doesn’t play for a few reasons. For one thing, if you are an avid video game player and enjoy the violence that they offer, it seems logical that you would want to know whether or not your love of games has harmful effects on you; similar to reasons people want to know what’s in their food for health reasons. However, not all gamers necessarily want or care to know this-- if violence in video games does has harmful effects, the gamer is probably subconscious to it, or is playing it because it interests them. It is also important to know the effects these games are having on players because society may actually be blaming innocent factors, in which case video game representatives are entitled to deny repeated allegations against their products. It seems that the most important focus should be on keeping people safe, and if violent video games are developing significant forms of aggression and violence among their players then people must be made aware of this. However if they are not, then critics must stop falsely accusing something, which may in part be because they don’t understand it.

Works Cited

Sternheimer, Karen. (2007). Do video games kill?. Contexts, 6. Retrieved from http://caliber.ucpress.net/doi/pdfplus/10.1525/ctx.2007.6.1.13

Carnagey, Nicholas L., Anderson, Craig A., & Bushman, Brad J. (2006). The Effect of video game violence on physiological desensitization to real life violence. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 43. Retrieved from http://www.psychology.iastate.edu/faculty/caa/abstracts/2005-2009/07CAB.pdf

Talamasca, Akela. (2009). Big ideas: are video games good for you?. BigDownload.com, Retrieved from http://news.bigdownload.com/2009/09/23/big-ideas-are-video-games-good-for-you/

*Bigdownload.com is a large site for gamers who can visit to learn about breaking news in the game world, video games old and new and all their details, and the different genres within the gaming world.

Bora, Chandramita. (2009). Harmful effects of video games. Buzzle.com, Retrieved from http://www.buzzle.com/articles/harmful-effects-of-video-games.html

*“Buzzle.com is comprised of a dynamic network of authors and content contributors who we proudly refer to as our Intelligent Life on the Web. As subject experts, our authors and content contributors create an informative, yet comfortable place for finding information about everything from animals to tourism. With current news in our What’s the Buzz? section, thousands of interesting categories, endless entertainment from our Escape Hatch, an interactive online community, and thought-provoking polls, Buzzle.com offers a medium through which to share knowledge of the world.”

Grossman, Dave, & Degaetano, Gloria. (1999). Stop teaching our kids to kill: a call to action against tv, movie, and video game violence. New York: Crown Publishers.

Goldstein, Jeffrey H. (1998). Why we Watch: the attractions of violent entertainment. New York: Oxford University Press.