The first two video games ever created back in the late 50’s early 60’s, “Pong” and “Spacewar!” lit a fire under the newly found video games movement. Fast forward to the twenty first century and the industry itself is worth over one-hundred billion dollars. One of the most notably famous corners of the video game market is a company titled “Rockstar”, with momentous games such as Grand Theft Auto V, Red Dead Redemption 1 and 2, and most infamous, Manhunt 2. The company itself is worth more than 3 billion dollars alone, but that profit does not come without problems. The company has been heavily criticized by many parents and researchers for promoting violent, graphic games and images onto its users, predominately kids, which in turn affects the user in such a way that violent actions are stimulated.
Research provided here suggests that there is correlation between violent behaviors and violent video games but no causation with such. The proposed relationship between violent video games and violent behaviors is nothing more than under-researched science placing a verdict most parents of gamers deem adequate, with their research being inconclusive or falsely positive. They are many overlooked factors in this heavily debated topic in research that do not help produce an explanation for such violent occurrences.
The boom of the video game industry in the 1990’s saw an increased interest of Politicians throughout the United States seeking to regulate violence in video games. Laws targeting video game regulation enacted a new area of legislation under American citizens guaranteed first Amendment. Ideology of those supporting such regulation stated that regulation would be for public good. These advocates expressed concern that such games “harmed” users by making them less empathetic to others. Although research back then on the effects of violence was slim, entities such as the “Entertainment Software Rating Board” were created in order to assign age and content ratings to video games (E, T, M, RP).
127 our experts are availableright now
This corporation is still around today, establishing ratings for video games ever since. While establishing game ratings is universally accepted as being a good thing, other such regulation should cease to come into existence. A very notable case of action taken against violent video games would be that of Brown v. EMA (2011). “Violent Video Games, Sexist Video Games, and the Law: Why Can’t We Find Effects?” is an annual review of Law and Social Science written by the Psychology department at Stetson University. In the piece it is written that,
“The argument was made that video games damaged the brains of minors. In each case that made it to the courts, the courts rejected arguments supporting regulation on three grounds. First, video games enjoyed constitutional protections similar to those of other art or speech. Second, minors enjoyed significant free speech rights that could not be easily taken away. Third, the research evidence supplied in support of the laws was significantly flawed, and advocates of the laws failed to detail studies contradicting their concerns. Thus, the research evidence did not meet strict scrutiny necessary to argue for reducing free speech protections of violent games.” (Ferguson 412).
Not only does regulation of such video games infringe on constitutional guarantees, the laws brought forth (as stated previously) does not even further the idea of the connection of violence and video games. Proof is significantly lacking to provide a concrete “yes” to the answer of the connection between violence and video games.
A counter argument often arises when debating that there is no causation with violent video games and violent behavior. That argument would be that of violent video games inspired school shooters such as the infamous Columbine shooting in the in the late 90’s so there must be a link to violent video games and such horrendous actions. It was noted that the shooters were fans of violent video games such as Doom, where the object of the game is to blast anything that gets in your characters way. That is nothing more than pointing fingers to a scapegoat.
A key counter-counter argument comes from two Authors of a book that research’s violent video games and behavior titled, “Aggression and Violent Behavior” states, “Experimental research has shown that playing violent video games produces higher levels of aggressive cognition, aggressive affect, physiological arousal, and aggressive behavior (in the short-term) than non-violent video games…” but goes on to state that, “If this were the case, the rate of day-to-day violence and physical aggression would have dramatically increased in North America due to the recent rise in prevalence rates of violent video game play.” (Adachi & Willoughby 56).
However, such findings in controlled laboratory settings do suggest that violent video game play may increase the chance of an individual behaving aggressively if the opportunity arose shortly after exposure to the game. After being exposed to a violent video game if an opportunity arises for an individual to behave aggressively, there is always the option for them too. Usually, in the real-world opportunities do not arise shortly after playing such games. Many gamers would even call video games a stress reliver.
Nothing is more frustrating than having to repeat a level over and over after dying or getting shot to death by the same solider in Call of Duty. Research has even suggested that aggressive actions don’t come from the game itself, but from being bad at said game. Researchers at Oxford University and the University of Rochester with help from “Immersve”, a company that helps research supposed actions states in their research that,
“[The study] conducted by researchers found that aggressive thoughts and actions don’t come from the violent content of a game–instead, it’s being bad at playing difficult games that give rise to real-world aggression. A few frustrating rounds of Tetris, in other words, would be more likely to make a gamer lash out than an hour spent absorbed in virtual decapitation and evisceration on an easy level of Gears of War… If it’s frustration rather than violent content that accounts for the aggression, that makes sense. The longer one plays, the better one gets at a game, and the less frustrating it is–indeed, helping players fight through frustration is part of what well-constructed video games do. But if that’s the case, it means that if we’re worried about the effects on kids of video games, violent and otherwise, we shouldn’t be encouraging them to play less. We should be encouraging them to play more.” (Drake).
The finding from this magazine should make it obvious that the violence itself does not cause violent behavior but the difficulty of games causes aggression. This magazine helps put the case to rest. Now, in theory, it would be better to play video games for a longer time than a shorter one to help reduce aggressive behavior.
While one can argue that the developing brain is influenced by actions that surround it that while violent video games may amplify certain behaviors, having other variables to offset or neutralize such a thought process will help greatly to keep such tendencies at bay. It is common knowledge that too much exposure to violent video games and playing video games for extended periods of time runs unbridled in this century. Researchers at Brigham Young University published an online academic article that analyzes violent video games and behavior over a 5-year period across Adolescence. Their findings establish the points presented here.
The research suggests that, “Ferguson, Olson, Kutner, and Warner (2014) found that violent video game play was not a significant predictor of delinquent behavior in seventh to eighth graders when parental, peer, and individual characteristics were included in a cross-sectional model….” (1869). When other positive factors are included into a gamer’s lifestyle such as parental and peer factors, the likelihood of an individual to become “inspired” by violent video games to commit abhorrent actions diminishes. Too much exposure, as noted can be detrimental though. Especially with younger generations, where all they grow up with is an iPad in one hand and a PlayStation controller in the other. Technology is all this current generation has grown up with. Becoming ingrained in one’s mind now at a young age.
There is no doubt aggressive and violent behavior has been ingrained into the human brain throughout its existence. Humans have always had an instinct for violence. From Caveman times, where the most aggressive survived, to the violent Gladiatorial battles held within the ancient Coliseum in Rome where the strongest survived by brutally killing their opponent in front of tens of thousands of spectators. Even current times with games such as Mortal Kombat, which are based on brutally killing your adversary in a to the death match. “Why we Watch”, published by Oxford university dives into why Western Culture- mainly America is engrossed in such violence. Throughout the book, the author examines where violence comes from, how it spreads, and the effect it has on generations.
In chapter 10 of “Why we Watch”, Goldstein states, “Violent entertainment may be enjoyed repeatedly because it lends itself to imaginative experiences and to a temporary loss of self-consciousness (flow). The willing suspension of disbelief, the leap into imaginary worlds, is emphasized in nearly every chapter of Why We Watch, whether considering literature, film, television, play, or sport. Although this potential inheres in all entertainment, it helps explain the tolerance for, if not the attraction of, violent imagery.” (219). The book provided gives a rational eye to eye understanding of why humans are fixed on violence. After all, humans and violent sports have gone together hand in hand for at the minimum 5000 years. Violent actions in sports, books, TV shows, and video games have all been sharing a commonality that has existed for thousands of years. Being the scapegoat to an ill-advised verdict without a full understanding the matter.
The Journal of Youth and Adolescence is a Journal dedicated to exploring and taking note of the developing youth today. The Journal stated provides an article that not only helps provide experiments that the answer to answer this topic, but also provides an explanation of such that puts this topic to rest. Having no flaws that would deem the data inconclusive, (Some experiments that state the opposite of these findings have not been even clinically validated) “Not Worth the Fuss After All? Cross-sectional and Prospective Data on Violent Video Game Influences on Aggression, Visuospatial Cognition and Mathematics Ability in a Sample of Youth” explains that, “Exposure to video game violence did not predict either aggressive behaviors or cognitive outcomes in correlational data, or aggressive outcomes or civic behaviors in prospective analyses.
Developmental analyses suggested that patterns in exposure to video games and their influence are stable across the developmental stages considered in the current article” (Ferguson et al. 120). With the outcome of the experiment presented in the article, the evidence is even more clear. NO negative outcomes from violent video games were produced. The experiment provided significant proof to support my thesis with the experiment having taken place being confirmed to have lack inconsistencies needed to nullify such findings.
The creation of video games has caused the global community of gamers more good than it has done bad. From a booming gaming industry that has generated over 100 billion dollars in the twenty first century alone, to the ever-increasing research that is being done on such an industry. The proposed relationship between violent video games and violent behaviors is nothing more than under-researched science placing a verdict most parents of gamers deem adequate, with their research being inconclusive or falsely positive.
Violent video games are legitimately protected under the first amendment of the Constitution (theoretically of course. But if a reader would investigate the first amendment our fore fathers would have argued for the freedom to make such games. Even though such technology was not created until many lifetimes after their deaths. But the basis for freedom of speech stands). It is an ever-growing industry that will still be the scapegoat of violence in society today, just like how books and plays were looked down upon for “rotting brains” and “wasting time” in the early technological ages.
