Do Video Games Cause or Promote Aggressive Behaviour?

It’s hard to believe this is even a controversial issue. The outcry against trends of contemporary youth culture has been a staple of American life. Examples from the past include jazz music, rock and roll, and cartoons on television. Logically, if people were to learn from the past, there is nothing exceptional about youth trends that would merit the label “controversy”. Unfortunately, that is not the case. Ever since video games became a popular form of media, there has always been the question of whether or not they corrupt the players. The concern for the possible effects on video game players range from increased aggression to mentally unstable killing machines. This stems from certain games and incidents, such as the content of the game Grand Theft Auto or recent school shootings such as Columbine and Virginia Tech of which the perpetrators were noted to have played video games. However, these fears have little to no evidence that video games are the cause of this kind of violence or indeed any aggressive behaviour in social interactions. Essentially, video games are not the root cause of increased aggressive behaviour in anyone but rather the cause is from the psyche or personality of the players.

    The more outrageous claims by proponents of the detrimental effect of video games are preposterous and unjustified. Of these claims, the idea that the gaming is linked or quite possibly the cause of school shootings stands out the most,

Glenn Sparks, a Purdue University communications professor, has made a connection between the isolating effects of video games, television, and the Internet and the prevalence of disaffected, lonely criminals such as the 2007 Virginia Tech shooter who killed more than thirty people. Many analysts pointed out the fact that Columbine shooters Eric Harris and Dylan Klebold were frequent players of the violent game "Doom," and that they had even written programs for it. (Lee, Finley 1)

It is highly unfortunate that such a thought process could exist. They’re clearly stating that playing video games is a significant contributor to such incredibly violent and tragic events, and they’re drawing this conclusion from the simple fact that they have played video games. Furthermore, they hint at video games being the cause with phrases such as “analysts have pointed out the fact” without proper citation of which analysts just spreads misinformation. Even further, they don’t cite the research from the analysts that have pointed out this fact. They simply note that analysts say that these shooters have played video games. There is no analysis that clearly states the impact from the analysts and no further research done on the topic.

Essentially they are using video games as a scapegoat instead of considering mental instability or the harsh social circumstances surrounding the shooters. However, the Virginia Tech shooter didn’t play video games during his college life, as noted by his roommates (Mass Shootings at Virginia Tech 42, 51). Furthmore, upon further investigation into the Columbine shootings, psychologist Peter Langman states, "’These are not ordinary kids who were bullied into retaliation,’" psychologist Peter Langman writes in his new book, Why Kids Kill: Inside the Minds of School Shooters. "’These are not ordinary kids who played too many video games. These are not ordinary kids who just wanted to be famous. These are simply not ordinary kids. These are kids with serious psychological problems’" (Toppo 1). The authors of Grand Theft Childhood: the Surprising Truth About Violent Video games Doctors Lawrence Kutner and Cheryl K. Olson also have come to the conclusion that the perpetrators of Columbine killed because one was horribly depressed and suicidal and the other was a sociopath (Kutner, Olson 8). Overall, there is a very clear misunderstanding of “correlation” and “causation” from the side that argues that video games do indeed cause alarmingly violent and aggressive behaviour. Noting that the Virginia Tech shooter did play video games in his youth, though not mentioning that none of them were violent, or that the Columbine shooters played the old title Doom and created mods, that is to write programs for a game to change certain gameplay elements or graphics, in a investigation about whether video games causes aggressive behaviour or not is highly unprofessional and promotes an exaggerated reaction to a issue. As stated above, these shootings were not related to video games at all, so the inclusion of these shootings just tries to coerce the thought process that changes a simple coincidence into a clear-cut causation.

    Now to discuss legitimate concerns about video games, such as the claim that video games promote a milder sort of aggressive behaviour. Again, these claims are based on correlations and are thus unreliable for definitive proof that video games cause aggressive behaviour. Aggressive behaviour meaning increased aggression towards one’s peers, antisocial behaviour, and desensitization. However, even these concerns are not immune to unscientific claims and misinformation. The organization Mothers Against Videogame [sic] Addiction and Violence, or MAVAV, argues that video games does cause this kind of behaviour and is very dangerous. Furthermore it is used as a resource in “Counterpoint: Video Games Are Addictive and Promote Irresponsible Behavior”. On MAVAV’s resources page they claim many things about video games such as the addictive properties of video games or how they affect players grades (MAVAV 1). MAVAV, which is a source of the “Counterpoint” article, is wholly unreliable. It contains absolutely no citations or even scientific data. All it has are statements they claim to be factual. This demonstrates the irrational reaction to youth trends discussed before.

Again, this is not a new trend among the concerned who cannot understand youth culture. However, it is a trend that should be eradicated. This notion that youth culture is dangerous, corrupting, and evil has to assume that children are consistently unsupervised and lack the capability of individual thought. As stated by Epstein, “ In the olden days of my youth we were always cautioned against watching cartoons because of the rapid rate at which animals and human beings seem to be killed off or suffer harmful consequences. But we survived, and the evidence is that the current generation of children will survive as well, so long as they are instructed by their parents that there is a difference between games and life—assuming that they cannot figure all this out by themselves” (Epstein 1). As Epstein’s article shows, he is not a gamer. However he logically presents his position. Before cartoons we had rock music and before that we had jazz, and during Shakespeare’s time his work was regarded as “vulgar”. (Bates 1). Humanity has been able to deal with these horribly offending materials in the past and it can no doubt survive with it today. Especially because children are capable of individual thought and are thus able to differentiate between play and reality. However, assuming that children can’t tell the difference, there’s still the concept of parenting. The ERSB rating is very similar to the ratings given to movies. Essentially, there is a recommended age range for games. Many of the games with objectionable content are rated for mature audiences and stores regularly require an adult presence. At this point, any sort of influence is not because of the content of the games but the parent’s lack of responsibility.

However, not all arguments that video games cause aggressive behaviour are irrational. The more logical arguments focus on the results of some studies that point to a relation in video game play and increased aggression. However many of these studies only find correlations and even then the tests they used to find these correlations are questionable in proving anything. Some studies have noted increased hostility, which is measured in number of physical fights per year, in players that have played violent video games and that they are less helpful and sociable to their peers (Walsh 1). Furthermore, psychologists have found “exposure to violence in video games results in a lack of empathy in response to incidences of violence in real life” (Lee, Finley 1). Finally, according to a Dutch study, “adolescent boys who played a violent video game showed that these youths were actually willing to inflict permanent physical damage on others by pressing a button that they were told would cause a loud noise with the potential to damage their opponents' hearing” (Lee, Finley 1). Many of these studies neglect to consider the psychology of the players. For example, while the studies noted in Walsh’s paper found that players of violent video games were more likely to be involved in a physical fight neglects to consider the circumstances of the fights or the children. As noted before children who are able to play violent video games often have less responsible parents and could thus be psychologically or socially compromised; or perhaps the fight was instigated by the other party. To truly say video games were at least a significant factor in causing these fights one must not statistically control the data but thoroughly investigate each and every fight before coming to a conclusion. Furthermore the the noise test cited in Lee’s and Finley’s article is a bit questionable. Since they were testing adolescent boys, it is highly likely that those boys have gained some level of logical thinking and could deduct that no damage would actually be given since this was a scientific study. Thus it still falls into the realm of “play”. Essentially removing the threat of actual harm done and placing it on the level of “play” similar to the actions of a child with action hero toys or schoolyard games.

In fact many of the accusations placed on video games show a lack of understanding of the material and the psychology of the players. Furthermore, these accusations are based on inconclusive evidence (Issit, Walker 1; Jenkins 1; Goldstein 1). In addition, the claim that gaming causes anti-social behaviour or has a isolating effect on it’s players is entirely false. Many games are focused entirely on multiplayer content and having a community for that multiplayer content(Left 4 Dead 2). For many gamers, video games is a social activity in which players work together, discuss, and befriend one another (Jenkins 1; Goldstein 1; Issit, Walker 1). Finally, the notion of desensitization of players neglects to consider a very important aspect of gamer psychology which is the “willing suspension of disbelief” (Goldstein 1). This has less to do with the effect of games on the psyche of players, but rather how many studies investigate the idea of aggression and desensitization. Many of the studies create a environment that is not comfortable or suitable for playing video games at leisure since they play for short bursts in a foreign environment for the purposes of a scientific study (Goldstein 1). Finally most of the tests include toys that can be used for aggressive play, having them punch rubber dolls, interpretations of stories, among other tests (Goldstein 1; Jenkins1). It goes without saying that toys are played with the “willing suspension of disbelief”, but that extends to rubber dolls as well, since they are not actual humans (Jenkins 1). The simple fact that video games have created communities and an entire subculture shows it is just as much a social activity as any other hobby or activity. Players compete, work within teams, and make many friends whilst playing the game. Especially with the advent of the internet and the current trend of online multiplayer, it is highly unlikely that players are consistently secluded. If they are playing a one-player game alone, then it is very possible they will talk about their experiences with their friends later online via chat programs or offline via vocal chords. Finally, as stated before, the tests used are questionable in the plausibility of the results. The strange environment and play of a game the player may or may not enjoy cannot produce satisfying results. They are neglecting how and why players play a game. These tests do not measure any sort of play for enjoyment or leisure and thus hold very little significance in proving anything about video games and aggression. This is further supported by the fact that the majority of these tests proved to be inconclusive.

    The outcry against video games is, again, baffling. There is not real evidence warranting such a “controversy”. Much of this controversy is simply misconceptions about gaming, misuse of conclusions from studies, and spreading factual errors. For example, many retailers check the ages of the customers before selling a mature game, contrary to what was said in Lee and Finley’s article (Lee, Finley 1). Hopefully these misconceptions and outright lies will eventually be dispelled and this “controversy” will come to an end.

Works Cited

Bates, Jonathan. "A Man for All Ages." Latest News, Comment and Reviews from the Guardian | Guardian.co.uk. Guardian, 14 Apr. 2007. Web. 02 Dec. 2010. <http://www.guardian.co.uk/books/2007/apr/14/classics.shopping>.

Epstein, Richard A. "What Me Worry? A Non-Player's Lament." Cultural Policy Center | The University of Chicago. University of Chicago. Web. 18 Nov. 2010. <http://culturalpolicy.uchicago.edu/papers/2001-video-games/epstein.html>.

Goldstein, Jeffrey. "DOES PLAYING VIOLENT VIDEO GAMES CAUSE AGGRESSIVE BEHAVIOR?Challenges of Video Games | The University of Chicago." Cultural Policy Center | The University of Chicago. Chicago University, 27 Oct. 2001. Web. 04 Nov. 2010. <http://culturalpolicy.uchicago.edu/events/conference-2001-video-games.shtml#papers>.

Issitt, Micah, and Katherine Walker. "Point: Video Games Should Be Celebrated and Improved Rather than Prohibited." Points of View: 2. EBSCO. EBSCO. Web. 4 Nov. 2010. <http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=pwh&AN=28675349&site=pov-live>.

Jenkins, Henry. "The Video Game Revolution: "Eight Myths About Video Games Debunked" by Henry Jenkins | PBS." PBS: Public Broadcasting Service. PBS. Web. 18 Nov. 2010. <http://www.pbs.org/kcts/videogamerevolution/impact/myths.html>.

Kutner, Lawrence, and Cheryl K. Olson. Grand Theft Childhood: the Surprising Truth about Violent Video Games and What Parents Can Do. New York: Simon & Schuster, 2008. Print.

Lee, M., and Laura Finley. "Counterpoint: Video Games Are Addictive and Promote     Irresponsible Behavior." Points of View: 3. EBSCO. EBSCO. Web. 4 Nov. 2010. <http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=pwh&AN=28675350&site=pov-live>. Video games promote aggression and should be replaced with more "healthy" activities.<http://culturalpolicy.uchicago.edu/events/conference-2001-video-games.shtml#papers>.

Left 4 Dead 2. 2.0.5.2. Valve. 18 Nov. 2010.

Mass Shootings at Virginia Tech. Rep. Blacksburg: Virginia Tech Review Panel, 2007. Print.

MAVAV | Mothers Against Videogame Addiction and Violence. Web. 18 Nov. 2010. <http://www.mavav.org/resources/>

Toppo, Greg. "10 Years Later, the Real Story behind Columbine - USATODAY.com." News, Travel, Weather, Entertainment, Sports, Technology, U.S. & World - USATODAY.com. USA Today, 14 Apr. 2009. Web. 18 Nov. 2010. <http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2009-04-13-columbine-myths_N.htm>.

Walsh, David. "Video Game Violence and Public Policy." Cultural Policy Center | The University of Chicago. University of Chicago. Web. 18 Nov. 2010. <http://culturalpolicy.uchicago.edu/papers/2001-video-games/walsh.html>.