Clinical studies of a psychological nature often state that video games cause violent behavior which led to video games being labeled with age restrictions similar to movies. Is this accurate? For every study I find that concludes that video games do lead to violence and aggression among players, others question the results and suggest these claims are overblown with no definitive conclusions to be drawn.
So which view is correct? I researched the topic to figure out if the conclusion is fair or if it’s yet another case of someone deciding something and then working backwards to try to prove it.
While past research suggested that video games lead to aggressive behavior, a study of numerous past research reports with this conclusion shows that a positive correlation between violence and gaming is unsubstantiated to any great degree.
So if video games aren’t proven to cause violence why is there such a disconnect between the two theories? And why do proponents of the link between video games and aggressive behavior continue to claim that their stance is correct?
Do video games cause violence?
Yes
Recent proponent of this stance: American Psychological Association
The APA released a Resolution in 2015 on the effects of violence in video games. They refer to a number of statistics to state how prevalent video games are in society and specifically to children and adolescents. In particular they point to how more than 90% of US children play video games and that around 85% of video games contain some level of violence.
The actual Resolution of their paper is a roughly 725 word account that gives numerous qualifications for this stance and suggests that further information is required because not enough is known about the effects of video games on:
- ethnicity and socioculture factors
- males and females
- school age and pre-school children
- the relationship between violence video games and negative outcomes
- the relationship between game ratings and the violence contained within each game
among others.
The net result is that the Association errs on the side of caution and suggests that at a minimum, parents limit the exposure of their children to violent video games.
Interestingly the AMA’s own Society for Media Psychology and Technology division disagrees with this conclusion although they qualify their decision by stating that they do not represent the official AMA position.
Furthermore, other global studies such as one in Australia have downplayed the connection and often concluded that a big part of the lack of agreement on the subject is in part due to the inability to define words like “aggression” and “violent video games.” They also refer to the difficulty of drawing conclusions that both sides of the debate can agree on when taking into account larger societal and political factors.
My take
The report from the AMA is a heavily qualified one that lists numerous provisos and questions regarding whether or not there is a definitive link between violence in society and violence in video games. Like many research reports of its kind, the AMA response appears to err on the side of caution and suggests that limiting video game usage by young children and adolescents is prudent.
I’ve always been torn on the issue of whether or not violence in video games leads to violence in real life. On the one hand I understand the theory that people get desensitized to things. We constantly read about a certain topic and as bad as it is, after awhile we get used to it and no longer think it is abnormal.
On the other hand, as a person who played various arcade and home video games from about the age of 8 onwards, I always felt a detachment from what I was playing and real life and never connected the two. Just like I never watched a horror movie with killings and then felt like acting that out for real in my life. These movies like the video games I played were just entertainment and an outlet, at least for me and people I knew. Are we outliers or the norm?
Of course, that’s not to say that some people won’t link the two and act out violence as a result of playing a video game or watching a violent movie. Then again some people drink and drive, gamble too much and believe everything they read online, too. What’s their excuse?
But if we can’t learn bad things from video games or movies, why do assume that we can learn good things by watching a documentary or a feel-good-story? Why can only good things be learned but not bad?
Finally, if we believe that violent cartoonish and animated video games lead to aggressive behavior, why not discuss the link between actual violence in real life through nationalism, war, militarism, policing, and things of that nature? Certainly these may play a part in the bigger picture of acceptance of violence in certain situations.
No
Recent proponent of this stance: Royal Society Open Science
The Royal Society Open Science released a report in 2019 that summarizes and refers to multiple studies and reports over the years and discusses how the question of violence and gaming has changed over the years. Specifically they point to how an organization like the American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP) “have softened their prescriptions concerning digital media and psychosocial development” pertaining to video game usage.
Having said that, the AAP has as recently as 2016 clearly referred to how “A sizable majority of media researchers both in pediatrics and psychology believe that existing data show a significant link between virtual violence and aggression.” (Source: AAP)
The Royal Society Open Science concludes by stating that the debate of video games and violence will remain an “unsettled question” but that “The results provide confirmatory evidence that violent video game engagement, on balance, is not associated with observable variability in adolescents’ aggressive behaviour.” (Source: Royal Society Publishing).
My take
Personally I tend to side more on the No side and with the conclusion of the Royal Society Open Science. I don’t think the question of violence and gaming is a black or white one and is one that can be answered other than on a case by case basis similar to the analogies of people who drink too much or gamble too frequently: It happens for different reasons depending on the person.
In our lives we are bombarded with violent images that are both fictional and real. Who is to say that they aren’t all responsible for an increase in violence? As someone who believes that correlation does not equal correlation, studies that conclude that video games do lead to aggressive behavior certainly don’t resonate with me personally. And I’m someone that spent more 25 cent coins than I care to remember on war, action, sports, martial arts, alien, shooter and other video games I played with various levels of simulated violence.
It is possible that video game do lead to aggressive behavior but to also conclude that there are other aforementioned real life actions that contribute even more so, ones that are not mentioned by either the Yes or No proponents.
Reasons for the discrepancies regarding violence and gaming
Depending on which report(s) you are reading the results can be very different. There are a number of possible reasons for this.
- What biases did each side of the argument have coming into the debate and how biased are the sources each side uses to prove their point? Everyone has an angle.
- The question of why video games have been isolated as the determining factor of what causes violence when other aspects of real life like war and war reporting, policing, the court and jail systems, castigation of certain groups of people, etc are not, needs to be asked. In the 1950s rock music was thought to be the devil’s music. In the 1990s, hip hop was targeted. One thing accused of causing a larger problem is not a new phenomenon.
- Some reports specifically poll adolescents and young people who play video games whereas other reports base research on the opinions of scientists and other adults who don’t play them. Demographics and personal opinions and biases towards or against gaming may come into play.
- There is not necessarily any agreement on the definition of many terms being discussed nor how to interpret the results.
- Some reports conclude that gaming has overall benefits (i.e. hand eye coordination) whereas others conclude that the overall net result is negative (i.e. desensitization of violence).
- If violent video games lead people to conduct violent activities, is it in the short term, medium term or long term?
- What about the effects of other violence that we are exposed to in other areas of life? What is the correlation between those aspects and how they tie into the overall picture of violence in society?
Summary
American Psychological Association: “A sizable majority of media researchers both in pediatrics and psychology believe that existing data show a significant link between virtual violence and aggression.”
Royal Society Open Science: “Thus, current research is unable to support the hypothesis that violent video games have a meaningful long-term predictive impact on youth aggression.”
Which stance is correct?
Over time, the question of whether or not violent video game contributes to violence in society has gone from being a black or white question to one that has a more nuanced and complex answer. This is certainly true when you consider the difference in the ages of the children playing the games, whether they are boys or girls, the games themselves, socioeconomic and cultural reasons and more.
As with many questions in life, more people have come to the conclusion that Do Video Games Cause Violence is a yes or no question that deserves more than a yes or no answer.
Check out the Royal Society Open Science paper on the subject of violence and the connection to video games as it quotes numerous global sources and studies. It also gives an overview of how the topic has become more nuanced over the years with numerous links to external resources on both sides of the argument.