Are Violent Video Games Harmful or Not - Essay Example

Violent Video Games: Harmful or Not? Violent video games has been a concern almost since the advent of the video games in the modern era, which started out with Space Invaders and Asteroids in the 1970s, played on a home Atari console. Part of the panic comes from the studies that show that violent tendencies are learned (Ferguson, 68). That said, the learned nature of violence may interact with other tendencies, including learning disorders, impulsivity and low IQ (Ferguson, 68). Whether violent video games (VVG) are truly harmful to society, are relatively neutral or actually beneficial to society is still an open and controversial question. This essay will explore these parameters and make a conclusion as to the effect that violent video games has on society. Markey and Markey (82) studied how aggressive tendencies might be mediated by personality. In other words, there are certain personality types which are more affected by video games than other types. For instance, individuals who score high on tests that measure psychotic or antisocial tendencies – lack of sympathy, aggressiveness, unfriendliness, untrustworthiness, lack of emotion, paranoia – are more likely to experience higher levels of hostility and aggressiveness after exposure to violent video games (VVG) than those who do not have these tendencies. This holds true with other forms of media as well, such as violent movies – the psychotic men, after seeing a violent film, is much more likely to state that violence is an acceptable way of resolving conflicts than men who do not score high on tests measuring psychotic or antisocial tendencies. When these same men are exposed to pornography, they are much more likely than men who do not score high on psychotic or antisocial tendencies to report that they are more likely to rape a woman. Likewise, they studied aggressive men – men who were angry, aggressive physically and verbally, and hostile in their cognitive patterns – and found that these men were more likely than non-aggressive men to attribute hostile motives to the actions of others after playing VVG. The researchers found that the traits that most resulted in increased violence after viewing VVG were individuals who were neurotic (depressed, easily upset, angry, emotional), not agreeable (indifferent and cold) and had low conscientiousness (not keeping promises, acting without thinking, etc.). The researchers concluded that, despite the fact that there is a prevalence of VVG, incidents of violence are relatively rare, therefore there has to be something more that compels these people to violence – much like the fact that, for the majority of the population, peanuts will not cause a reaction, but, for some, they are deadly, VVG are “deadly” for some, but, for most, have no effect (Markey and Markey, 86). Anderson & Bushman (353) conducted secondary research through PsycINFO, looking at the following terms – video and game and fight, aggression, violence, hostility, anger, arousal, and prosocial. They looked at different studies that looked at the above tendencies, and tied these tendencies to violent video games. They found that the results of these multiple studies showed that exposure to violent video games posed a public health threat to children and youths, which includes college-aged individuals in this analysis. They found that exposure to violent video games decreased pro social behaviors and increased aggression in the participants. That said, they admitted that they needed to review more longitudinal studies, and that violent video games might actually be useful, if these games can teach the game players about nonviolent solutions to social conflicts. Another study conducted by Sacks et al. (1) also suggests that video games might do harm to children. They looked at the amicus curiae briefs that were filed in Brown v. Entertainment Merchant Association, 130 S.Ct. 2398 (2010). They looked at which of the briefs were more persuasive, looking at the quality of the experts who wrote the briefs – specifically, they looked at which of the experts had more expertise on violence and aggression. They found that the writers of the Gruel briefs, which were in support of the American Psychological Association and American Academy of Pediatrics, who were on the side of the State of California. In other words, the experts who were in favor of the Gruel brief were the ones who had concerns that violence in video games are harmful to children. And these experts had significantly more expertise than the other experts – they authored, on average, 18 times more publications on violence and aggression than the experts for the video game producers. Further, Sacks et al. (11) found that “although the Millett Brief [the brief in favor of video game producers] states that its signatories have 'extensive experience with the research regarding the effects on individuals of media violence, including violence in video game,' this assertion is wholly unsupported by their scholarly publication records” (Sacks et al. 11). The researchers also found that at least two of the experts own or work for video game companies, therefore they had clear conflicts of interest. Only 17% of the experts for the Millett Brief have published at least one article on violence or aggression, compared to 100% of the writers of the Gruel Brief (Sacks et al. 11). There is also the issue of possible moral disengagement when playing VVG. Hartman and Vorderer (865) looked into this possibility. They posited that the players of VVG do not necessarily want to engage in violence in real life situations, because actual individuals in their lives fall within the players' “scope of justice.” Therefore, it is not necessarily a sign of dysfunction if a player enjoys virtual violence. They hypothesized that when a video game player has opponents who are non-human will feel less guilty and enjoy the game more than when the opponents are human. They also hypothesized that video game players whose opponents showed condemnable conduct would feel less guilty and enjoy the game more than when the opponents did not show this kind of condemnable conduct. They did show that having the opponent show condemnable conduct increased enjoyment and lessened guilt in the players of these games, which implied that fighting for a just cause was what caused the enjoyment. Whether or not the character opponent was human or non-human did affect guilty or enjoyment either way. What this might mean for real-world violence is that the players might not be violent in the real world, because the violence that they are experiencing in the video game is somehow justified, therefore the player feels that he or she is simply meting out justice. While the above evidence at least suggests that violent video games are detrimental to society, even if the evidence only suggests that violent video games might exacerbate an already existing psychological issue, there is also evidence that violent video games might be used as a force for good. Ferguson (68) states that there is too much emphasis on the potential bad effects of video games, which pre-empts the discussion of “the strategic use of violent video games as a positive force in cognitive development, education, psychological treatment and health care” (Ferguson, 68). Ferguson points out that moral panic over media influence has been with us since media began, and that, even before there was public media, there still was a great deal of violence. For instance, in the post-Roman Middle Ages, there was jousting and violent games. The Reformation of the Catholic Church admonished against non-Latin translations of The Bible, for these translation promoted heresy and rebellion. He also states that moral panic, in general, is defined as “a question by some members of society to impose their moral beliefs on the greater society through the tactic of fear,” (Ferguson, 68), implying that this moral panic was at the root of the concerns about violent video games. He criticized many of the studies regarding violent video games, finding that many of them do not show that there is a match between violent video games and violent crimes; use unstandardized use of aggression measures; have low standards of evidence; do not have clinical cut-offs; have small effect sizes; show publication bias as well as citation bias; and use invalid aggression measures (Ferguson, 74-75). On the other hand, he said that other studies show that violent video games are actually positive – they increase visuopatial cognition; increase social involvement, because some of these games are played on-line, which introduces players to one another; and can be used in education, such as Re-Mission, which is a shooter game that was used to enhance cancer knowledge by showing how cancer cells may be blasted. Conclusion There is much to be said about VVG, and much of it is not necessarily good. There is some evidence that it exacerbates aggressive and psychotic tendencies, and that they increase violent tendencies and decrease pro-social tendencies. Ferguson (68) states that these studies are overblown and biased, and that VVG actually may be positive, and he suggests that the issues being raised are the result of a moral panic, as opposed to being based upon any actual evidence. That said, what is most persuasive in these above studies are the studies involving the amicus briefs. These briefs are written by experts, and, generally, the parties try to get the best experts they can to write the briefs. The fact that the experts who wrote briefs for the State of California and the associations that suggested that VVG are harmful had so much more expertise than the other brief writers, and that some of the brief writers who wrote briefs for the video game manufacturers actually were involved in the video game business, speaks volumes. The quality of experts on both sides of the issue suggests that VVG are, in fact, harmful, and there should be some regulation on them. References 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 12.5 (2001): 353-359. 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. Hartmann, Tilo, and Peter Vorderer. "It's okay to shoot a character: Moral disengagement in violent video games." Journal of Communication 60.1 (2010): 94-119. Markey, Patrick M., and Charlotte N. Markey. "Vulnerability to violent video games: A review and integration of personality research." Review of General Psychology 14.2 (2010): 82. Sacks, Deana Pollard, and Brad J. Bushman. "Do Violent Video Games Harm Children? Comparing the Scientific Amicus Curiae" Experts" in Brown v. Entertainment Merchants Association." Nw. UL Rev. Colloquy 106 (2011): 1-283. Read More