Introduction
The idea of associating video games with violence has existed for almost as long as the medium itself. Many titles enable the person to enact a character that is encouraged to participate in violence against other people, both computer- and player-controlled, without suffering any consequences for it. In some cases, the person is encouraged to be creative in how they commit imaginary atrocities.
Moreover, there exists an enduring perception that video games are mainly intended for impressionable children and adolescents. All of these factors make it easy for a person who is unfamiliar with video games to believe the worst of them. However, the people who play them tend to oppose the viewpoint, conducting numerous studies to counter the narrative. This essay will discuss both sides of the debate and the claims as well as the evidence they provide.
The Argument for the Relationship
There are two primary arguments regarding the danger of video games, one of which applies worldwide while the other is more specific to the United States. The first is their influence on children and adolescents through continued exposure to violence. The claim is that eventually, they become desensitized to aggression and become less empathetic toward others (Sifferlin). This idea particularly applies to competitive games, which include many highly popular titles such as Call of Duty and Fortnite.
In them, the players are encouraged to kill each other’s human avatars, often with weapons designed to seem realistic. While there are age restrictions on many games that feature violence, they tend to be easily bypassable, letting children play them freely. As such, due to the immersion they provide and their availability, some people assert that video games affect children’s development adversely.
The claim is supported by some research, though it is currently far from producing conclusive results. Snider highlights a 2015 review by the American Psychological Association and a 2018 study that have both found a small but persistent in the aggression of children who play video games. However, Snider also mentions a lead researcher in the second paper, who suggests that violent children may be drawn to brutal video games and not the other way around.
Overall, it would appear that in a broad context, video games do not necessarily make a significant difference in children’s behavior. However, they may affect some particularly susceptible infants and adolescents and add to their issues. There is some cause for concern, but it does not correspond to the level of concern that video game violence has generated over the years.
The second argument involves the problem of events with large casualties, shootings in particular. They have some parallels with first-person videogames due to the latter’s tendency to try to appear real while omitting many inconvenient factors.
Players often have to plan their approach and weaponry so that they can eliminate all enemies, who will often be armed or otherwise dangerous. One can find some similarities between this process and a shooter’s preparation to kill as many people as possible. As Draper notes, some mass shooters have been known to play video games and mention them in their manifestos. As such, some people have established a link and claimed that shooting games serve as a variety of mental preparation. Shooters supposedly get motivated by the virtual violence that they commit and use games as a method to learn about potential tactics.
There is little to no evidence for the existence of the relationship, possibly due to the low number of cases that complicate scholarly analysis. Moreover, the shooter mentioned above made his motivations known in their manifestos or statements, and the issues he discussed are political (Draper). The tactics aspect is also compromised by Draper’s note that the criminal explicitly warned like-minded people not to “attack heavily guarded areas to fulfill your super-soldier COD fantasy,” because doing so would be ineffective. Shooters will typically target defenseless locations such as churches or schools to incur the most damage before they can be stopped. There are only a few games that enact such a scenario, most or all of which have been heavily controversial.
The Argument against the Relationship
The argument that video games do not cause violence often struggles to become widespread and publicly acknowledged because of the difficulty of proving a negative. It is easier for the other side to generate publicity by citing cases such as shootings that attract attention already than to review them carefully and say that there is no such link afterward. To counter this tendency and prevent potentially harmful policy, the defenders of video games have conducted and compiled extensive research.
Numerous studies exist that refute both of the principal claims of the other side that have surfaced over the years and are typically cited in response. They do so by both producing different results for the same hypothesis and introducing additional factors for consideration. The responses to each argument are discussed in more detail below.
The claims that video games increase aggression have been contradicted both in general and in the context of minors, specifically. Azad mentions a study that found no link between time spent playing and aggressive behavior in adolescents and concludes that video games reduce violence by providing an outlet for such tendencies. Azad’s article also suggests that some studies may be skewed because boys, who are typically more aggressive than girls, also play video games more, further diminishing the small effect found. Overall, it would appear that studies that claim an increase in aggression in children are outliers that require additional exploration and supporting evidence. As such, it would not be reasonable to act on the current positive findings and blame video games for adolescent violence.
The situation surrounding video games and shootings is similarly inconclusive, with little scientific evidence to support the claims discussed above. Draper notes that with the number of shootings in the United States, some perpetrators, most of whom are men, would inevitably play video games, but their number is too low to be significant. Draper adds that the mental profile of the mass shooter, especially the difference that makes them commit atrocities unlike the numerous people who are similar to them, is still underexplored.
As such, it is unreasonable and dangerous to assign them a specific motivation such as videogame violence because their issues are likely much more complicated. Overall, there is too little evidence for any specific danger of video games, especially popular ones. As such, people often turn to discuss the reason why the debate has persisted for so long despite the advantage held by one side.
Both the protection of children and mass shootings tend to be topics that are highly popular with the media and politicians. Associated Press notes that there is no strong lobby behind video games, unlike other popular issues such as guns, and that games can look scary to someone who does not play them. As such, members of the two groups above can easily attract the attention of many people with an emotional appeal.
Regardless of their political affiliation, a politician can generate some publicity without strong backlash by speaking out against the seemingly simple issue. However, in recent years, the population’s awareness seems to have increased, and President Trump’s 2019 comments about “gruesome and grisly video games” were met with significant negative feedback, especially online (Draper). After almost thirty years since the release of the original Doom, the debate may be approaching a resolution.
Conclusion
Claims about the dangers of video games seem to appeal to emotion more than reason. While some studies support them, albeit weakly, a substantial body of research either refutes them or shows that the opposite tendencies exist. In particular, investigations that affirm the link may be ignoring confounding factors or mistaking the direction of the relationship, with violent people being attracted to violent games and not vice versa.
Similar claims about mass shooters are at least partially contradicted by the criminals themselves and appear to be generally irrelevant. Overall, it would seem that the only reason why the debate continues is the relative novelty of video games and their somewhat niche appeal. Politicians and the media exploit these aspects to capture the attention of uninformed people for publicity. However, this tendency may be changing, and defenders of video games appear to be approaching a decisive victory.
Works Cited
Associated Press. “No, There’s Still No Link Between Video Games and Violence.” Los Angeles Times. 2019. Web.
Azad, Arman. “Video Games Unlikely to Cause Real-World Violence, Experts Say.” CNN Health. 2019. Web.
Draper, Kevin. “Video Games Aren’t Why Shootings Happen. Politicians Still Blame Them.” The New York Times. 2019. Web.
Sifferlin, Alexandra. “Violent Video Games are Linked to Aggression, Study Says.” Time. 2015. Web.
Snider, Mike. “Study Confirms Link Between Violent Video Games and Physical Aggression.” USA Today. 2018. Web.