Effects of Violent Video Games on Adolescents

The influence of violent video games is often reviled as a cause of increased aggression in young people. Mass killings in recent years, such as at Columbine high school tend to cause concern among parents and others who wish to use violent media as a scapegoat. The relationship between the playing of violent games and increased aggressive behavior is purely correlation, not causation. The reasons for disagreement among social scientists often rest on the limits of methodological research in psychology. The purpose of this paper is to look at the social theories, methodologies and the evidence for and against claims that aggressive behavior results from playing violent video games and evaluate whether these claims are true.

It is easy to see why violent video games could be a threat to the impressionable mind and actions of a child. With the advent of better digital technology, games and movies become more realistic often blurring the lines between the virtual world and reality (Strasburger 5). Youth today spend nearly half of their waking hours plugged in (Strasburger 8). Furthermore, games allow children to interact with a virtual world simulating choices and actions making games even more realistic (Strasburger 5).

The prevalence of such violence in media is startling. American children and teens spend more time watching television or playing video games than they spend in school; by age 18 a typical child will have witnessed more than 16,000 murders (Beresin). Children younger than four years do not understand the difference between reality and fiction thus making such regular violence seem normal (Beresin). Therefore it is important to monitor television programs and games for young children. The need for monitoring is not as well supported for adolescents.

There are two contrasting opinions regarding the roles of children and adolescents in their relationship with the media. One view holds that children and adolescents are manipulated and molded passively by media, especially by violent and graphic content. The other perspective holds that adolescents and children are sophisticated in their use of media and that media empowers young people to choose and act without physical repercussions (Strasburger 10). Parallel to these common beliefs is opposing psychological theories.

One such theory is called social learning theory (Bandura 1978) which claims that learning and thus behavior is the result of our mimicry of those around us. This theory is the foundation for claims that violent video games cause aggressive behavior since adolescents and children will mimic what they see in these games resulting in undesirable behavior (Griffith 204). Another theory, called catharsis theory, asserts that violent video games would have a relaxing effect since they channel destructive emotions such as anger (Griffith 204). These contrasting theories provide the foundation for the arguments surrounding the effects of violent video games. To critically analyze the evidence supporting the negative effects of violent video games, the methodologies should be thoroughly reviewed and discussed.

Many public pundits and newspapers assume that there is a strong causational link between violent media and aggressive behavior (Mifflin). In a New York Times article after the shooting at Columbine High, it was stated that the "evidence is overwhelming" for the link between violent media and adolescent aggression (Mifflin). However, there is no such thing as definite proof. It is difficult to demonstrate cause and effect in psychology. Furthermore, it is nearly impossible to get long-term data on the effects of violent games since cohort studies take many years to complete (Griffith 206). Compounding the ambiguity around this issue is the difficulty in isolating other factors that could potentially cause both aggressive behavior and the playing of violent video games (Griffith 206). To best illustrate the drawbacks of studies on violent video games and increased aggression we should look at the individual methods used.

There are many methodological problems surrounding studies that claim a definite link (Griffin 203). The methodologies employed by psychologists include self-reporting studies, direct observation, and experimental studies. The drawbacks of these types of studies are that they only look at short term effects and they are limited in their inclusion of other variables such as race, class, gender and age in causing aggression (Griffin 212). There have been no long term studies done on the effects of playing violent video games. Cohort studies looking at the frequency of gaming younger in life and then the frequency of violent crimes later has not been done (Griffin 203). Secondly, the only research that has been getting consistent results supporting the detrimental effects of violent games has been studies on young children. In these studies, researchers have observed violent physical play among children after watching or playing a violent game clearly providing direct support for social learning theory (Griffin 212).

In other methodologies, Griffith cites other issues. For example, self-reporting studies are ineffectual at measuring a causal link between the use of violent video games and aggressive behavior. A questionnaire used by Dominick (1984) was targeted specifically at 5th to 11th graders. It found that video game playing was correlated with aggression, but when other factors were independently accounted for "the correlation between video game usage and aggression" evaporated (Griffith 206). The problem with self-reporting studies is that individuals may have response bias—that is they may believe that they are expected to give a certain answer and thus give that answer instead of the truth. For example, another study (also cited in Griffith 1999, 206) reported that when adolescents were asked whether they believed that violent video games made them more aggressive they responded that it did. Other self-reporting studies (Kestenbaum and Weinstein 1985) have found that video games had a more calming effect, providing some support for the catharsis theory (Griffith 206). Studies using the self-reporting method are limited to correlation only and thus do not provide strong evidence for the causal link between violence in games and aggression in adolescents.

Other methodologies in psychology have drawbacks as well. Experimental studies on children and adolescents are few because of ethical issues in studying "serious aggressive behavior", thus they must rely on natural field studies (Griffith 208). Only experimental studies can provide definite evidence for causality however in nearly all the studies that Griffith cites there was no increased aggression among older age groups (Griffith 209). The few studies that did report increased aggression had confounding factors such as competition playing a role (Griffith 209). Because of this Griffith concluded that there was little causational evidence for increased aggression among adolescents and their use of violent games.

In his literature review of 24 studies, Griffith (211) asserts that consistent results of aggression among adolescents have been lacking. He goes on to say that violent games played by adolescents tend to have negative consequences in different contexts, such as in a competitive atmosphere (Griffith 211). Other psychologists have cited poverty, child abuse, exposure to family and community violence and substance abuse as intervening factors in human aggression (Beresin). Obviously, there is more affecting the prevalence of aggressive behaviors in adolescents than just the influence of violent media.

In another study, correlations of age, exposure to violent games, and tendency towards aggressive behavior were analyzed. In this study (Kirsch 384) the author looks at the validity of the General Aggression Model (GAM) in light of what scientists know about human development. He looks at later studies (citing Anderson and Bushman 2001) and finds definite links between violence in games and increased aggression (Kirsch 383). Anderson and Bushman (2001) conducted another meta-analysis of the literature that concludes that there was a correlation between violent games and aggressive behavior. The evidence supporting their position include a "correlation coefficient of .19 for aggressive behaviors, .27 for aggressive thoughts and .22 for physiological arousal" and the independent variable, violent video game usage (Kirsch 384). These data suggest a link but not a strong correlation between playing violent video games and having the above consequences. These findings are qualified by other risk factors such as previous abuse, genetics or age group (Kirsch 378). Adolescents with the largest number of risk factors are more prone to aggressive behaviors; there is no single cause for increased aggression (Kirsch 378). Thus the causes for aggressive behavior among teenagers are complex and interdependent.

Kirsch shows that early adolescent teenagers (ages 12-5), especially boys, play more violent video games than late adolescent teens (ages 18-20) (Kirsch 380). These younger teens also exhibit more hostility in ambiguous situations and are mistrustful of others' intentions (Kirsch 381). This is a period in life that witnesses more fighting, often with peers, siblings, and parents (Kirsch 381). In hypothetical conflicts devised by psychologists, younger teenagers were more likely to respond aggressively in a confrontation than were older teens (Kirsch 380). Furthermore, younger teens tended to prefer violent games whereas older teens were ambivalent; this was attributed to younger teens desiring more psychological stimulation than their older counterparts (Kirsch 383). The increased proclivity towards violence in younger teens is attributed to the hormonal and cognitive changes that young adolescents must cope with (Kirsch 382). Since younger adolescents are not used to these changes, they are more likely to exhibit stress and hostility.

Kirsch then synthesizes these findings of younger adolescents into the framework of the GAM. The General Aggression Model states that short term increases in aggressive cognition stimulate emotional angst and aggression by interacting with internal states and 'scripts of anger or hostility' which then increase physiological stimulation (for example increased heart rate) (Kirsch 383-384). In the long term, this affects individual personalities by promoting aggressive beliefs and desensitizing individuals towards violence (Kirsch 384). Evidence for the long term predictions of the GAM is purely speculative and is based on long term studies of violent television effects on children (Kirsch 384). The GAM also predicts a difference in the effects of violent video games on younger and older adolescents. Younger adolescents respond 'impulsively and without cognitive evaluation' in stressful situations (Kirsch 385). The psychological stimulation that violent video games provide only increases the emotionally based compulsions that young adolescents are prone to (Kirsch 385). Older adolescents are more developed cognitively, thus are more likely to evaluate a situation before responding. This maturity makes it less likely for violent video games to have a negative effect on their behavior (Kirsch 385). It is important to evaluate the emotional and cognitive maturity of young adolescents before exposing them to psychologically stimulating games.

Other researchers argue that the deleterious effects of violent video games have been vastly over-estimated. In Ferguson 2010, (69) the author argues that throughout history media has been seen as a threat by older generations. He admits that the belief that violence results from playing violent video games is understandable in light of the fact that all behavior is learned (Ferguson 68). But he insists that focusing on the harm that violent video games potentially cause sidetracks the public from potentially beneficial effects of violent video games (Ferguson 68). He states that “there is a risk that such concerns could move beyond objective scientific examination and into the realm of ideology, dogma and moral panic" (Ferguson 68). He differentiates between the two terms 'aggression' and 'violence' and asserts that the two terms should not be conflated with one another (Ferguson 68). Aggression was defined as behavior intended to harm another but was qualified by the statement that it could involve socially sanctioned behaviors such as wrestling (Ferguson 68). Violence however, is defined as an action intended to cause considerable harm to another person (Ferguson 68). Violence is a type of aggression, but aggression is not the same as violence. They should not be equated in the psychological literature (Ferguson 68).

In Ferguson (2010) he cites instances where public figures have portrayed mass violence as caused by violent video games when there was no relationship between the two (70). For example, Jack Thompson (an anti-video game lawyer) stated on television that the Virginia Tech Shooter (Seung Hui Cho) played lots of violent video games but the Virginia Tech Review Panel found that the shooter did not play any kind of video game (Ferguson 70). While the public seems intent on placing the blame of these horrific incidents on violent media they should instead look at both sides of the issue. Ferguson cites a study (Durkin and Barber 2002) that found that video game playing teens were "more well-adjusted than their non-player peers" (Ferguson 70). Disparaging violent video games as a threat to society ignores the potential benefits that these games can have.

Ferguson cites citation and publication bias for the pre-occupation that psychologists have with proving links between violent video games and aggressive behavior (Ferguson 74). Grant funding is scarce; it is better (in the eyes of policymakers) to fund studies proving social threats than studies that undermine prevailing dogma (Ferguson 74). Public notions about increased levels of violence among our youth are completely unfounded (Ferguson 75). While violent video game consumption has gone up in recent years, levels of violent crimes have actually gone down (Ferguson 75). It seems that news media are more preoccupied with stirring up fear than citing actual data.

Ferguson continues in his analysis by stating that there may be positive effects of playing violent video games. Violent video games can be positive in that they can transmit knowledge and skills, such as STEM studies and history in a more thought-provoking and interactive way than traditional methods of teaching (Ferguson 76). Violent video games can also help train civilians in visual-spatial skills which are important for professions in the armed forces and for pilots and engineers. Ferguson cites a number of studies (Ferguson 76) that have found that playing violent video games is correlated with higher "visual-spatial acuity, perception, processing, visual memory and mental rotation" (Ferguson 76). Interestingly, some studies have noted that non-violent games do not have the same effects (Ferguson 76). Ferguson concludes that there may be a stronger transmission of raw information, not personality traits via video games (76). In order to fully assess these potential benefits more experimental research should be done.

To conclude, the negative effects of violent video games on adolescents are not fully supported by psychological research. While the public is preoccupied with blaming media for incidents of aggression they should be looking at other complex and uncomfortable statistics concerning our nation's youth. The sad truth is that aggressive behavior is more prevalent among youth growing up in unstable familial and social situations. Class, socioeconomic status, gender and age group have significant and confounding effects on how adolescents perceive and respond to the world. It should be stated that parents should be more critical about allowing emotionally immature children and adolescents to play violent games, but that some of these games can help train and teach children in more innovative ways.

Works Cited

Anderson, Craig A., and Brad J. Bushman. "Effects of violent video games on aggressive behavior, aggressive cognition, aggressive affect, physiological arousal, and prosocial behavior: a meta-analytic review of the scientific literature." Psychological Science 12 (2001): n. pag. Psychological Science. Web. 16 Jan. 2009.

Bandura, Albert. "Social Learning Theory Of Aggression." Journal of Communication 28.3 (1978): 12-29. Print.

Beresin, Eugene V. "The Impact of Media Violence on Children and Adolescents: Opportunities for Clinical Interventions."The Impact of Media Violence on Children and Adolescents: Opportunities for Clinical Interventions. N.p., n.d. Web. 13 Dec. 2013. <http://www.aacap.org/AACAP/Medical_St

Ferguson, Christopher J. "Blazing Angels or Resident Evil? Can Violent Video Games Be a Force for Good." Review of General Psychology 14.2 (2010): 68-81. Print.

Griffiths, Mark. "Violent Video Games and Aggression: A Review of the Literature." Aggression and Violent Behavior 4.2 (1999): 203-212. Print.

Kirsh, S. "The Effects Of Violent Video Games On Adolescents The Overlooked Influence Of Development." Aggression and Violent Behavior 8.4 (2003): 377-389. Print.

Mifflin, Lawrie. "Many Researchers Say Link Is Already Clear on Media and Youth Violence." New York Times 9 May 1999: n. pag. New York Times. Web. 13 Dec. 2013.

Strasburger, Victor C., and Barbara J. Wilson. Children, adolescents, and the media. 2 ed. Thousand Oaks Calif.: Sage Publications, 2009. Print.