Violent Video Games and Violent Behavior: A Research Comparison
This paper critically analyzes two studies with divergent findings on the relationship between violent video games and violent behavior: Cunningham, Engelstätter, and Ward (2016), which used real-world crime statistics and video game sales data, and Gentile, Bender, and Anderson (2017), which examined physiological and cognitive responses in children during gameplay. The paper compares each study's methodology, evaluates the evidential strength of their respective data sets, identifies logical fallacies present in both, and situates the debate within its historical and theoretical context. The analysis concludes that Gentile et al.'s physiological approach carries greater scientific validity, while Cunningham et al.'s real-world design, though ecologically grounded, relies on overly abstract assumptions.
- Introduction: Framing the debate over video games and violence
- Analysis and Comparison of the Two Papers: Methodological review of Cunningham and Gentile studies
- Background and Role of Theories: Historical context and theoretical models of aggression
- Review of Evidential Strength: Evaluating data validity across both studies
- Logical Fallacies: Slippery slope and post hoc errors in both papers
- Applicability and Significance: Policy relevance of violent video game research
✍️ How to write this paper — guide, tools & examples ▾
What makes this paper effective
- The paper maintains a clear comparative structure, systematically evaluating two opposing studies across consistent analytical dimensions: methodology, evidence strength, logical fallacies, and real-world relevance.
- It demonstrates critical thinking by not simply summarizing the studies but actively identifying methodological weaknesses and logical fallacies in both, even in the study it ultimately favors.
- The inclusion of theoretical context (social learning theory, script theory, biological and developmental theories) grounds the comparison in broader academic discourse rather than treating the two papers in isolation.
Key academic technique demonstrated
The paper exemplifies comparative critical analysis — a core graduate-level skill. Rather than arguing a single position, the writer evaluates competing empirical claims by examining internal logic, data validity, and methodological assumptions. The identification of named logical fallacies (slippery slope, post hoc ergo propter hoc) shows the writer can apply formal reasoning frameworks to assess research quality, not just report findings.
Structure breakdown
The paper opens with an introduction framing the social policy stakes of the debate. It then moves into a paired methodological analysis of both studies, followed by a historical and theoretical background section. The next two sections evaluate evidential strength and logical fallacies respectively, before closing with a brief discussion of policy applicability. This funnel structure — from descriptive comparison to evaluative critique to real-world implications — is well-suited to academic comparative essays.
Introduction
Video games have become a major form of leisure activity played by people of all ages, particularly teenagers. While for some they are harmless pastimes, others consider them a precursor to violent behavior. This has grown into a significant policy issue, especially in the United States, where acts of violence — such as mass shootings — represent a persistent social problem. In real-world settings, some have linked violent behavior to playing violent video games; however, it is equally true that many people play the same violent games without any propensity to harm others.
This controversy is reflected in research findings as well: some studies argue that violent video games cause violent behavior (Gentile, Bender, & Anderson, 2017), while others argue to the contrary (Cunningham, Engelstätter, & Ward, 2016). This paper critically analyzes these two research studies, which present divergent findings on the effect of violent video games on human behavior.
References
American Psychological Association. (2015). Resolution on violent video games. Retrieved from http://www.apa.org/about/policy/violent-video-games.aspx
Anderson, C. A. (2003). Violent video games: Myths, facts, and unanswered questions. Psychological Science Agenda, 16(5).
Cunningham, S., Engelstätter, B., & Ward, M. R. (2016). Violent video games and violent crime. Southern Economic Journal, 82(4), 1247–1265.
Farrelly, P. (2013). Issues of trustworthiness, validity, and reliability. British Journal of School Nursing, 8(3), 149–151.
Gentile, D. A., Bender, P. K., & Anderson, C. A. (2017). Violent video game effects on salivary cortisol, arousal, and aggressive thoughts in children. Computers in Human Behavior, 70, 39–43.
Markey, P. M., Markey, C. N., & French, J. E. (2015). Violent video games and real-world violence: Rhetoric versus data. Psychology of Popular Media Culture, 4(4), 277–295.
Matthen, M. (Ed.). (2015). The Oxford handbook of philosophy of perception. Oxford Handbooks.
Create your account
Always verify citation format against your institution’s current style guide requirements.