Video Games and the Increase in Adolescence Aggressive Behavior

¶ … exciting about video games is you don't just interact with the game physically -- you're not just moving your hand on a joystick, but you're asked to interact with the game psychologically and emotionally as well. You're not just watching the characters on screen; you're becoming those characters.

Nina Huntemann, Game Over

Violent Video Games: Do they Cause Violent Behavior?

Disasters such as school shootings in Colorado and in other academic institutions have prompted national and international concern over media that children watch and are involved in and the consequent result in their level of aggression (Ferguson, 2007). The majority of studies have focused on the impact of TV in producing aggression and a significant amount of studies have indeed noted an association. Relatively few studies, however, have been conducted on video games and whether or not these stimulate inspired violence. Moreover results are mixed. Ferguson, (2007) conducted a meta-analysis on 30 review studies showing that researchers had arrived at mixed conclusions of the impact of the games. There were differences between the range of games, subject pool, and treatment time and design and all of these complicated results. Some researchers assert that playing violent video games results in violent behavior whilst others affirm that no parallel can be drawn. Reviewers of the literature are equally confused. Each accuses the other of publication bias with critics arguing that opponents of violent video games exaggerate the negative outcome whilst avoiding possible positive outcome. Opponents of those games, however, accuse their critics of the same agenda saying that their personal identities and self-interest are so linked with the games that they deliberately avoid seeing the negative repercussions. It may be, however, that the situation is far more complex. So many variables exist into testing whether or not violent games have an effect. Conditions include length of the game, kind of game, specific culture, context, characteristics of user, and so forth. The author of this research, therefore, suggests that delineating determining variables for the confusion -- singling out the variables that cause contradictory results- will help social researchers better define the problem and implement studies that will have clearer results.

Introduction

The video game enterprise is huge. Studies estimate that more than 80% of homes with boys 8-16 years old possess these games and that the video manufacturing industry is larger than the film one (Ferguson, 2007). Currently, one can play video games on computers, consoles (e.g., Xbox 360, PlayStation, Wii), handhelds (e.g., Nintendo DS), computers, iPods, personal digital assistants, and mobile telephones. Violence has grown by leaps and bounds. Even as far back as 1993, a survey showed that 88%of boys and 66% of girls reported playing these games at least one hour a week, whilst 29% of boys reported playing them at least 3-6 hours a week (ibid.) it is presumed that given the far greater range of mediums that users can access for playing the games, these statistics have increased. The same study showed that half of the adolescents preferred games displaying violent content (17%) or fantasy violence (31.9%), whilst other prefer nonviolent demonstration of sport (29.4%), vernal entertainment (19.7%), and educational themes (1.8%). Of all of these genres, therefore, fantasy violence shows the biggest cut by far. Fighting games (such as Mortal Kombat, Streetfighter and tekken) are bestseller whilst first-person shooter (Such as Quake, Doom, and Marathon) also shares first class status. Each of these above-mentioned games show exponential leaps in graphic inspired violence to earlier video games productions. Increasingly faster games are introduced over the video growing in leaps of violence. Parents and the watchdogs such as the National Coalition on Television Violence (NCTV) are concerned by the possible ramifications of children continuously absorbed in these fantasy-real, violence-imbued games. At one time, U.S. Surgeon General Everett Koop pronounced violent video games to be one of the three top factors in causing family destruction whilst a mayor of Indianapolis spearheaded law banning children under 18 years old from playing these games unless accompanied by an adult (Halladay & Wolf, 2000). In fact, a recent panel of experts assembled by the U.S. General unequivocally pronounced video games to be harmful to the moral nature of the country:

"Research on violent television and films, video games, and music reveals unequivocal evidence that media violence increases the likelihood of aggressive and violent behavior in both immediate and long-term contexts" (Anderson et al., 2003, p. 81).

Numerous reports by professional health associations (e.g., American Academy of Pediatrics, American Psychological Association, Australian College of Pediatrics, Canadian Pediatric Society) and government health agencies (e.g., U.S. Office of the Surgeon General, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services) have come to the same conclusions (Gentile et al., 2007; Ontario Office for Victims of Crime, 2004). Some meta-analytic studies (such as Anderson, 2004; Anderson & Bushman, 2001; Anderson et al., 2004; Sherry, 2001), clearly show a clear positive association between video games and violence. Each of these met analysis / literature reviews considered both cross-sectional and longitudinal studies and are therefore quire responsible in their qualities. All, without exception, showed that exposure to violent video games is associated with higher levels of aggressive behavior, aggressive cognition, aggressive affect, and physiological arousal and with lower levels of prosocial behavior. These studies discovered that not only did video games have a significant impact on violence but that, many times, this influence exceeded that of violent TV shows and violent films. However, they (and similar ones) have also been accused of publication bias since not only did they ignore studies produced before 1995, but they were also selective in studies chosen (choosing only published ones and even then ignoring many others). For these and other reasons, these studies are incomplete.

A more recent and reliable study trying to avoid these problems found indubitable association between violence of the show and user violence and that this difference was unilateral regardless of sex and demographic differences. They attributed this due to the all-absorbing impact that the user has in the game:

It is true that as a player you are "not just moving your hand on a joystick" but are indeed interacting "with the game psychologically and emotionally." It is not surprising that when the game involves rehearsing aggressive and violent thoughts and actions, such deep game involvement results in antisocial effects on the player. (171).

The immediacy of the impact was supported by neural imagery that showed clear association between violence of the game and corresponding brain activation of brain regions that are attracted towards aggression. In an experiment conducted by Englehardt et al. (2011), participants played a violent or nonviolent video game, viewed violent and nonviolent photos while their brain activity was measured, and then gave an ostensible opponent unpleasant noise blasts. Individuals whose prior exposure to video game violence was low, showed desensitization to the violence shown on the game (as indicated by neural imagery of corresponding brain regions) and, this in turn translated into greater shows of violence eon the person's part. In other words, the greater the amount of violence portrayed on game and the more intense the user's involvement in the frame, the more desensitized the user became to the violence portrayed, and there greater the level of his aggression. However, as Englehardt et al. (2011) pointed out, what is unknown is the previous level of the user's attitude to violence: they may have been already desensitized to violence in which case their desensitization in this instance is nothing new. Similarly, it may have been another unmeasured factor that may have stimulated the neural drop in sensitivity to the portrayed violence. The authors however concluded that as far as they could see "acute desensitization to violence can account for the causal effect of violent video game exposure on aggression" (1036). Quoting from Caldwell, A Pillar of Iron, they concluded that:

"The daily spectacle of atrocious acts has stifled all feeling of pity in the hearts of men. When every hour we see or hear of an act of dreadful cruelty we lose all feeling of humanity" (ibid.)

To these researchers, at least, and to so many others, it is clear that video games have an impact on user behavior both for good and for bad. Violent video games insure violent behavior and the more graphic this violence, the more aggressive the behavior.

Parents, concerned observers, and watchdogs continue to protest, but conclusions regarding whether or not violence-inspired games are responsible for violence-inspired behavior on the part of children continues to be mixed.

Skepticism

In 2001, a meta-analytic study conducted by Sherry (2001) indicated that video games do have an impact on violent behavior, but this impact is small and far smaller than the impact TV has on behavior and thought. They further discovered that human and fantasy-simulated video games have a greater impact on violence than sports-violent games have. Paradoxically, it seems that the longer the game is played the less impact it has on the violence of the user. This may be due to the result that short-played games have a greater intensity.

Meta-analysis however has its limitations which include factors such as the researchers selecting their included studies (therefore incorporating bias to a certain degree), excluding others that they may not be aware of and/or that come from sources that they do not necessarily recognize that may be just as authoritative such as dissertations), and including faulty studies. To that point, Ferguson et al. (2008) did not seem too particular regarding the studies that they chose. They also only included a relatively small amount of studies as well as focused on sub-analysis which does not obtain a good chance for results. Most importantly, meta-analytic studies may just show association. They certainly cannot conclude that there is a casualty.

Some observers (e.g. (Ferguson, 2007, Ferguson & Kilburn, 2009) hypothesis that publication bias may have over-exaggerated some of the results of severity of the games and that this bias influenced the conditions and factors of the research (e.g. subject audience chocsen, speficifgs of games palyed, and other factors of the context) resulting in subjective outcome. These studies accordingly decided only to select studies that pandered to their choice, rejected studies that had been published before a certain date, overlooked others, and misinterpreted those that they finally selected.

Other studies have also yielded null effects.

Moreover, some critics claim -- in an interesting argument -- that the whole issue of video game inducing aggression is not only exaggerated but also one-sided. What about all the good that comes from the movies? And these critics (such as Ferguson (2010)) claim that a huge amount of good can, paradoxically, initiate from violent video game playing and it can be seen as an educational tool. How? In that skills such as visuo-spatial cognition and social involvement can be obtained.

To that end, Ferguson 92010) and colleagues argue that social observers should take into account not only the negative ramifications of violent video games but also the positive effects.

For all these reasons and more, critics have therefore decided that the issue is undecided. This is reinforced by the public's disinclination (on the whole) to accept conclusions of research criticizing aggression of video games due either to reasons of self-interest and identity or due to the fear that the ramifications of the research may threaten freedom of expression. The outcome of research -- if it is to be expected -- promises to be controversial.

Variables Involved in Violent Video Games

As stated before, reason for the mixed results of the research may be due to the complexity of undertaking research on this variable in the first place and that examining these variables may reduce the controversy granted by ramifications since social activities can control one or more of these effecting factors. Various mechanisms are involved in producing outcome of the game including characteristics of the player of the game, characteristics of the subject pool, duration that game is played, and characteristic so the experiment (location, interviewer bias, interviewer qualities) and so forth.

One of the variables is the fact that cultural characteristics may also influence results that games have on users. A country for instance that demonstrates more stress may inspire more stress in users and, therefore, evoke more violence. To the same reason, a country that indicates a great amount of violence on a regular standard may have user being more vulnerable to the aggressive-impacts of the game. The influence will be different on a teenager who lives in a more affluential, calm country. Poverty to may evoke different effect from the user. For these and various other reasons, culture may play a huge impact in the results that the game has on the user. This can be seen, for instance, from the fact that the context of violence on Japanese anime videos (or others) is different than that shown on U.S. media even though the total amount is similar. Japanese TV tends to portray violence in a more graphic way but it also shows the results more clearly on the victim exacerbating victim suffering. This may explain although not necessarily) explain why violence is less in Japan than it is in USA where there is less focus on victim suffering.)

As stated, the meta-analytic study conducted by Sherry (2001) indicated that video games do have an impact on violent behavior, but this impact is small and far smaller than the impact TV has on behavior and thought. They further discovered that human and fantasy-simulated video games have a greater impact on violence than sports-violent games have. Paradoxically, it seems that the longer the game is played the less impact it has on the violence of the user. This may be due to the result that short-played games have a greater intensity.

Other meta-analytic studies (such as Anderson, 2004; Anderson & Bushman, 2001; Anderson et al., 2004; Sherry, 2001), however, came up with more significant and positive results showing a clear positive association between video games and violence. Each of these met analysis / literature reviews considered both cross-sectional and longitudinal studies and are therefore quite responsible in their qualities. All, without exception, showed that exposure to violent video games is associated with higher levels of aggressive behavior, aggressive cognition, aggressive affect, and physiological arousal and with lower levels of prosocial behavior. These, however, reversed the findings of Sherry (2001), discovering that not only did video games have a significant impact on violence but that, many times, this influence exceeded that of violent TV shows and violent films. This may be due precisely to the fact that, as the quotation preceding this essay notes, users are psychologically and emotionally involved in the game. They are in it and therefore absorbing the behavior as opposed to TV and movies where viewers are merely watching it. The more experiential and visceral presence may have a stronger impact and more immediate impact on user. The difference, in short, is between viewer and user. Another variable, therefore, that it would be worthwhile to study would be whether the duration of the game and the amount that the user is involved in it corresponds with violence on part of user.

Another factor that may instigate aggression is whether the game is being played amongst oneself (solely) or with others. Shafer (2012) too discovered that outcome of game, competitive situation, and genre all factor into producing aggression. Where players played collaboratively (against the environment for instance), less aggression as the result than when players played against one another. The style of playing, too, therefore is another factor that must be factored into the equation.

Similarly too is the intensity of sensory realism cues that are a marked feature of violent video games. There is the blood color, screams of pain, and player's perspective -- all of these affect the players' physiological arousal and sate of aggression. The more realistic the blood color and screams, the more the person was aroused. Accordingly, realism of game is another determining variable (Jeong et al., 2012)

Age of user too is uncertain. Studies (Anderson, 2010) unilaterally found no difference between the gender of the user (violence of the game has an equal effect on both). However, the effect of the game on the age of the user is uncertain. It could be premised that the younger the user, the more vulnerable he or she is to the content, but this is unclear (Huesmann, Moise, Podolski, & Eron, 2003). It needs longitudinal research to measure this, and video games are still too recent a product.

A very good question -- and another variable to consider - is why violent video games produce the outcome that they do. This was the research question of Hasan et al. (2012), and they concluded that video game violence increases the hostile expectation bias (i.e. Expectation of hostility) which, in turn, increases aggression. Wouldn't some be more susceptible to this than others? Indeed, the researchers found that men were more prone to the hostile expectation bias than women. But wouldn't it depend too on a specific personality? On experiences of that personality? On the degree to which they take the game seriously? On the country that they come from? On conditions in their own life (as for instance some may have a harsher life than others in which case they may be more likely to distrust others, more competitive, and more vulnerable to the hostile expectation bias? Each of these are good questions that determine the impact that the game will have on the user. Considering these variables means that some users will be more prone to impact of the video game than others. It may, therefore, be that singling out certain factors would be a more valuable approach to take than banning video games altogether (see also Englehardt et l (2012) who showed that different behaviors of players can cause different results despite violent content of the game). With this approach, social workers would know what to look out for whilst activists and parents, as well as others who are concerned about the impact of the games (such as the U.S. Surgeon General) can be more specific in their precautions.