Video Games Do Not Cause Violence
Many parents fight against video and computer games meant for children. They claim that they do not understand technology. Many argue that children will transform into the violent characters in the videos. Research that can give a rational elucidation about the blame in the commencement of tragic occurrences is understandable. When people act violently, the natural response is to question the reason behind it. Unfortunately, that similar impulse can cause a quick judgment and wrong blame. In the wake of the latest increasing mass shootings, some policymakers and political leaders have suggested banning video games following the thought that they result in real-world violence. Any scientific evidence does not back the idea (Szycik et al. 737). The available research shows that violent video games have reduced violent activities. Also, the evidence that people committing crimes play violent video games is not illustrative enough to ascertain that the particular person used to watch “Sesame Street” or put on sneakers. Other researches have shown that video games reduce stress and in some case are likely to limit the crime rate. Besides, video games are played by a varied cross-section of the public. Video games do not cause violence among children or young teenagers.
Christopher Ferguson provides evidence that indicates that video games are not responsible for individual violence and that any person claiming that they do destroy people who play or watch them is based on minimal information. Ferguson states that moral panic, like those associated with mass shootings, encourages psychotherapists to make considerable noise on the topic to gain financial aids or prestige. In 2011, in a case revolving around violent behaviors and violent video games, the Supreme Court ruled made a ruling against California law aiming to control the sale of violent video games to below 16 years-old children in 7-2 decision. In the view of the majority, the court indicated, concerning the study on violence on a video game, that “The investigations have been disallowed by every judge or jury to consider them and with positive reason.” The Supreme Court supported that aggressive video games are free from restrictions in line with the First Amendment as do children and evidence from different researches have no convincing evidence that video games immorally harm children.
The case outcome might have seemed incredible for many who believed fervently that video games were detrimental to minors. Scholars had been guaranteeing us that media violence had an impact on us nearly as dramatic as misuse of drugs like excessive smoking on the cancer of the lungs or that media violence attributes to almost half of all the homicide incidences in the United States (DeLisi et al. 135). In truth, some academicians had suggested while giving stun warning that scientific professionals were moving for a trustable crisis sometimes because of the exaggerated arguments. The reason is open, as the Supreme Court truthfully saw it that the existing evidence of the video games in correlation to violent crimes in the society lacks strengths and is inconsistent. In most cases, they are based on investigations that use questionable research methodologies (Szycik et al. 737). Therefore, the studies are taken as an unusual way of indicating that academicians seem to have pushed their data, knowingly or unknowingly. The Supreme Court view was reflective of the review of the Sweden and Australia governments, all of which occurred nearly the same period. Clinicians and study of researchers have now supported the idea that there is a lack of agreement among professionals on the consequences of media violence on the community. According to Van Looy (127), only 10.1 percent of experts accepted that digital games on violent are a menace for society. Someone should look at the other 89.9 percent experts who never welcomed this idea.
Graph showing survey outcomes of scholars on the effect of media violence on society
An investigation from multiple labs is making it observable that the consequence of video games playoff on children’s aggression is small. Expansive research done in German equally have not disclosed the correlation between increasing violent crimes and violent video games. Other investigations, on the contrary, have revealed that any new release of fierce video games associates with an instant reduction in violent crimes in society. It is in line with a complete decline in youth violence happening in the period, as evident in this graph showing the development of violent video games from 1996 to 2011 EMA (Ferguson 57). As it shows, the dark red line shows the increasing consumption of violent video games. Also, the blue line indicates the reduction of violence among young adult populations.
A graph showing a reduction in violence among youths as video game violence consumption rises
The evidence presented in this graph is not to reveal that no investigation discovered any end product of the violent video games on youths, but that the result was insignificant. For example, a study carried out in Canada unearthed that playing an intense video game is only connected to almost a half a percent growth in an increase in youth aggression at a later time. Another similar outcome is visible in Dartmouth’s study on violent crime among violent video game players. Asking youth if they play aggressive video games and whether they participate in violent crimes or conducts is a tense question to receive the right unbiased response. The research found out that people who involve in violent video games have their aggression increased but roughly with half percent (Hartmann et al. 318). There is a dissimilarity between practical and statistical significance. Scholars have usually appeared ignorant of the problem.
Scholars have said that evil or the good of a video game only means the quality of action within the virtual scenario. Virtual crime is not evil though it is in the aspect of the game, as interpreted by other players or passive characters. The immoral and immoral actions in video games do not possess any true ethical meaning; however, from the view of Aristotelian theory, it can still be meaningful in changing human behavior. In two cases, the Singer utilization of Columbine Shooting and the Lee Boyd Malvo case of Carneal and Chalmers, the two occurrences, video games, are found to be not significant.
In one study by Kühn et al. (127), the researcher tested probable impacts of a person playing GTA V, which is a fierce cinematic game. The investigator sets to play the game for two months with the use of a control cohort who acted as a non-aggressive video game. All the people were tested before and after the commencement of the violent video game, which was social life supportive game Sims 3, including a passive control group. The participants were tested again after the video for a long period of response and subsequently in follow-ups of two months duration gap (Kühn et al. 134). Even though the researcher did the tests with the aid of battery having questionnaires and analyses of computerized character to assess the variables of aggressiveness, anxiety, mood, interpersonal competencies, and empathy of the participants, as well as the executive control group, there were no observations of any detrimental consequences in response to video game playing. Only three assessments of the 208 participants revealed a weighty association trend that answers the hypothesis (DeLisi et al. 137). Because at least ten essential impacts would be anticipated entirely by chance, it was concluded that a person performing vehement video games does not relate to harmful, aggressive conduct in society.
Many studies show an individual to have an increased aggressiveness in behavior or thoughts and reduced moral behaviors, the impacts are short-lived. Nevertheless, the correlation, if any, is usually insignificant and not long-lasting. Due to these findings of the reaction of violence after a short period, the association between violent crimes and playing brutal videos is not very useful in being a representative of the population. Research papers showing longer tracing intervals are essential and can be highly relevant. However, no matter the significant representative correlation, it is necessary to avoid children from violent video games. It is because children tend to value more what they learn in their childhood ages and make them part of their life as they grow old. If so, it would appropriate under parental guidance.
Przybylski et al. (1) Investigated whether teenagers who play video games develop aggressive behavior than those who do not. The outcome did support the hypothesis that video game contributes to aggressive behaviors. The authors say that almost all teenagers engage in a video game and the general public have created an assumption that video game has negative effects (Przybylski et al, 1). Despite the argument from opponents of video games that they cause mass-shooting events, researchers who support video games argue that it is important to recognize the social and cognitive benefits of video games. In the study, British adolescents who played violent video games were recruited. The psychosocial functioning of the adolescents was assessed to evaluate the aggression and prosocial behaviors. Both confirmatory and exploratory models were employed to evaluate whether violent games contribute to aggressive behavior (Przybylski et al, 2). The findings showed no relationship between violent video games and aggressive behaviors. The present research finds that researchers ask the video players to rate the violence in video games and their aggressive behaviors. Thus, the participants rate the game violent level and their aggression level. This is known as self-reporting biases which inflate the relationship between self-aggression and violence in gaming (Przybylski et al, 2). However, this study used a fair and sensitive test and had a greater confidence in interpreting the results. The article recommends that the policy-makers and researchers should adhere to openness and rigor in trying to understand the effect of technology, in particular video games in people's lives. There is confirmatory evidence that video games do not contribute to aggressive behaviors.
Markey et al (1) assert that many correlational studies provide a sound argument that violent video games contribute to violence in our societies. Not only correlational studies but researchers and lawmakers insist that violent video games are the main factor that causes violence in the 'real world'. For example, the media reported that the shooting that occurred at Columbine High School was as a result of violent video games. The media also reported that the perpetrators in Virginia Tech shooting were video game players. After these tragedies, about 5,000 articles were published and reported that violent act is contributed by violent video games (Markey et al. 5). However, it is important to note that the correlational studies use bias in that they use the method of questionnaires where the participants are asked to rate their aggression level and compare to video game violence. Apart from self-reporting, other experimental studies measure the aggression levels between video game players and non-video game players. Note that those played violent video games caused noise blasts and this affected the opponents and increased aggression. This methodology is flawed in that the studies focus on minor forms of aggression. These forms of aggression differ from aggression in the 'real world'. In the current study, the authors measured violent crime rates such as homicide and aggravated assaults. There was a simple correlation between these crimes and video game sales (Markey et al. 5). The results showed that there was no link between video games sales and serious crimes. Despite the claim by correlation studies, the media, and researchers that violent video games are the cause of aggravated assaults and homicides, the current study finds no evidence to support the claim. Focusing on the sales of video games annually, there was no relation between the sales and the increase in violent crimes. Surprisingly, after the sales of video games, there was a reduction in aggravated assaults. When the M-rated video games were released, there was a reduction in homicides (Markey et al. 7).
The article states that the reduction in crimes while the video games were being played is because when adolescents play video games, they show aggression in the virtual world but not in the real world. In other words, rather than showing aggressive behaviors physically, they just feel angry and control their aggression. Another explanation is that aggressive individuals are more likely to play violent games so that as they are playing, they will express aggression. In other words, aggressive individuals do not commit violence in the streets but they like watching the popular video games to decrease their aggression (Markey et al. 7). This is known as the catharsis effect which states that in normal life, people experience traumatic events that can influence to act violently. However, people tend to view aggression such as tragic plays and violent video games to release emotions and prevent themselves from engaging in negative behaviors.
According to Dana Foundation, the media, researchers, and lawmakers blame video game for the real world violence. These individuals are influenced by the present studies that argue there is a correlation between video games and aggression. However, other studies have done comprehensive research on video games and violence and have found no evidence. For example, in 2011, Justice Saule Alito gave a concurring opinion and said that the goal of the video game is to kill, rape, chop, and set on fires, among other violent acts (Boffer, 1). However, there is no evidence that video games lead to violent acts. People rely on the research studies that contain flaws in methodology. The American Medical Association reported that video games are associated with gambling addition but it affirmed that there is no evidence about the report and therefore, the council should consult the American Psychiatric Associating before reporting that video game addiction (Boffer, 1). The American Psychiatric Association reported that there is a correlation between violent video games and antisocial behaviors such as biting, threats, insults, and form of aggression. However, it reported that there is no evidence that video games contributed to lethal violence. The National Center for Health Research reported that there is no clear evidence that playing violent video games is associated with aggression (Boffer, 1). The organization recommended that the studies that report the hypothesis need to have a large sample size to derive more accurate results and eliminate errors. However, it is important to note that video game is a factor that can lead to aggressive behaviors but it is important to consider all other factors and stop blaming violent video games.
Conclusion
Politicians, medial, and lawmakers blame video games for aggressive behaviors that cause violence. Many studies have reported a correlation between violent video games and violence. However, the research paper finds that there is no enough evidence to support these claims. Contrary to the assumption, some researchers have found that playing video games is normal and not all adolescents who play video games engage in violent acts. Individuals who are aggressive tend to play the games to feel relieved. This means that rather than staying on the street committing crimes, they opt to play the game as a way of controlling their emotions. Therefore, the studies and research are flawed and it is recommended that scientists should address the issue using a critical eye rather than attention-getting desired. Scientists, lawmakers, politics, and other parties need to be careful not to report the negative effect of a video game using assumption, rather, the conclusion should be based on evidence-based research to provide enough evidence.
Works Cited
DeLisi, Matt, Michael G. Vaughn, Douglas A. Gentile, Craig A. Anderson, and Jeffrey J. Shook.
″Violent video games, delinquency, and youth violence: New evidence.″ Youth Violence and Juvenile Justice 11, no. 2 (2013): 132-142.
Ferguson, Christopher J. "Violent video games and the Supreme Court: Lessons for the scientific
community in the wake of Brown v. Entertainment Merchants Association." American Psychologist 68.2 (2013): 57.
Hartmann, Tilo, K. Maja Krakowiak, and Mina Tsay-Vogel. ″How violent video games communicate violence: A literature review and content analysis of moral disengagement factors.″ Communication Monographs 81.3 (2014): 310-332.
Kühn, Simone, et al. "Does playing violent video games cause aggression? A longitudinal intervention study." Molecular psychiatry 24.8 (2019): 1220-1234.Schulzke, Marcus. ″Defending the morality of violent video games.″ Ethics and Information Technology 12.2 (2010): 127-138.
Szycik, Gregor R., Bahram Mohammadi, Maria Hake, Jonas Kneer, Amir Samii, Thomas F. Münte, and Bert T. Te Wildt. ″Excessive users of violent video games do not show emotional desensitization: an fMRI study.″ Brain imaging and behavior 11, no. 3 (2017): 736-743.
Przybylski, Andrew K., and Netta Weinstein. "Violent video game engagement is not associated
with adolescents' aggressive behaviour: evidence from a registered report." Royal Society
open science 6.2 (2019): 171474.
Markey, Patrick M., Charlotte N. Markey, and Juliana E. French. "Violent video games and real-
world violence: Rhetoric versus data." Psychology of Popular Media Culture4.4 (2015):
277.
Boffer Philip. "Do violent video games lead to violence?." Dana Foundation (2019).
