The Effects of Video Games on Violent Behavior

The idea of playing a visual game on a television via a controller was an idea that began a little more than twenty years ago. Ever since its entrance into the entertainment culture at that time, video game consoles have become a necessary electronic for any house with children or young adults. The sales of games now rival movies and are always increasing, and the business is considered one of the fastest growing fields of technology in the world. As the gaming console has evolved, it has become more capable of producing graphics that model the real world. This has created countless possibilities for gaming developers-yet, this has also created a reason for concern. There has been an increase in games that exhibit graphic scenes of violence or require a player to kill massive amounts of humans to advance in the game. Mix this concern with the recent surge of school shootings and violent teens in the news, and now people start pointing fingers. Do games cause violent behavior? They are certainly a popular medium of entertainment that affects a wide number of individuals, so it's an important question to ask-one that many studies have tried to answer. However, when the research is assessed and video games are really put under examination, it becomes difficult to point fingers. Violent video games are a form of entertainment that may actually provides potential benefits for the players that many critics have failed to realize.

The first issue to tackle is determining how video games affect a gamer, both physically and mentally. The physical responses can be clearly seen in people who are playing a game-some move their bodies as if urging their character on; many grimace when ill fortune befalls them in context of the game; and victory against other players can bring forth smiles and teasing banter. Examination of the psychological responses to games can be a bit more elusive however, and this is where we look to research for an explanation. A study by Professor Ravaja, from the Helsinki School of Economics, used an electrocardiogram machine to measure facial electromyography-or EMG-activity and facial skin conductance levels of people as they played a game. These measurements help scientists better understand what is going on in the mind of a person, because certain muscles in the face react in correlation with the emotion a person is feeling. The video game that was played offered several dynamics; a player could complete or fail puzzles, objectives, and races. Victory and failure were both recognized by the game with a screen that told the gamer how well they had done. The results of the experiment were definite. When a person succeeded at a task and was commended by the game, the EMG activity in the face showed signs of positive thinking. When they failed at a task, the EMG results would show frustration or anger. The results were the same across a wide spectrum of people. Clearly, emotional responses are very much a part of playing a video game.

Yet, the results also showed something else. Certain events, such as falling into a hole or off an edge in the game, "elicited an increase in zygomatic and orbicularis oculi EMG activity." In other words, tumbling off an edge or falling to their deaths, at times, actually brought about smiles and laughter from the gamers. Now it's no secret that many people find violent acts to be enjoyable in games, but Professor Ravaja gives an interesting explanation for this when he states that "no matter how engaging and immersive a video game is, the player nevertheless knows that it is only a game." This brings about the interesting fact that even though something can be perceived as dangerous and threatening in real-life, the same situation in a game can be perceived as challenging and enjoyable, thus bringing about emotions that reflect a positive mindset. None of the data collected actually showed a person reacting as though these things were happening to them in real life, because the person is constantly aware they are only playing a game. Understanding this relationship between a game and a gamer is very important to completely realizing how the mind of a gamer is affected by the games they play. Those who would make the claim that a person can be desensitized by a game, and use them to train for violence, must consider how differently the human brain percieves an action in a game as opposed to real life. Even more importantly, they must consider how a person reacts to challenges and success. Games present a player with challenges and goals, and a successful completion of these challenges can help bolster self esteem. A gamer shoots and kills not because of some inner twisted desire, but because the game tells them that this is the objective-killing becomes acceptable in context of the game's world, because it is simply another goal put forth by the game. Most gamers do not think deeper than this, because they're simply looking for a challenge, and video games provide this. If critics consider this disparity to their claims, they begin to lose ground. A video game creates a world separate of real life, one that doesn't pull the player in as much as critics would claim.

Having shown that games can bring about certain emotional responses while being played, one may wonder: how long do these emotions stay with a gamer? Are they fleeting reactions that come and go in a matter of seconds, or do they affect the player's temperament in situations following the game? A study by Vincent Cicchirillo, on behavior in the aftermath of playing a video game, investigated this question. The study involved having half of their volunteers play a violent video game (one where you kill other human beings to progress) and the other half played a nonviolent video game. They were then given some fake assessments to complete, then at the end asked to rate their researcher as to whether his research made him worthy of receiving a government grant to continue his work. Almost everyone who played the violent game gave the researcher a negative report, saying he was not deserving of the grant. The opposite was true for the other group. This would suggest that a person's thoughts will be more negative after playing a violent game, which could contribute to violent behavior. But this is only one explanation. Cicchirillo makes it very clear that the comments made towards the researcher by those who played the violent game were still courteous and not at all exhibiting aggressive behavior. He also suggests that the researcher may have been rated lower because the people playing the violent game found it inappropriate for research purposes, and so their own personal biases became a factor. Many critics of violent games make this mistake. They have predispositions without fully understanding what they are criticizing. Most critics of violence in games have not actually played any amount of the games they criticize themselves-they have only seen clips in a commercial, read slanted reviews, or walked in on their own children massacring a group of bad guys. Their lack of personal experience gives them little insight into the psychology of a gamer.

Thom Gillespie, a professor of game design at Indiana University, actually offers some enlightening ideas on how a game can be the catalyst for ethical and moral lessons. The game he refers to is Grand Theft Auto, the game that made a big boom in the news because of its gangster-related storyline that involves drug deals, shooting police, and risqué interactions with prostitutes in an interactive virtual city. Professor Gillespie tells how Grand Theft Autocan be the starting point for myriad in-class discussions, which he has his class participate in regularly. These talks really make his students think critically about issues, such as why violent entertainment appeals to such a mass audience. Another time, they might discuss how Grand Theft Auto is a game based on decisions and consequences. If you punch a person, they punch back; if you steal or murder, you will be chased; if you lie, then a person might not help you next time around-a gamer learns that all decisions have consequences. The fact that all these things can happen in the imaginary Liberty City of Grand Theft Auto also brings up critical conversation on how the laws and ethics of the city need serious renovation, and even how the ethics of the main character could improve. All-in-all, Prof. Gillespie loves the game because every talk always comes to the same conclusion-like it or not, violence games are still art that show us something about ourselves we may have not seen before. He gives a wonderful example of his point by talking about the accomplishments of Art Spiegleman. The man created the Garbage Pail Kid collector cards, which had gross images and pictures that were aimed at appealing to boys who enjoyed disgusting things. He then wrote the comic book "Maus", a comic retelling of the Holocaust with cats and mice. Was he condemned and put down for these things? Hardly. The man won a Pulitzer Prize for his work.

But artistic expression and providing grounds for deep ethical discussions is not the only thing that violent video games offer. Professor Patricia Ariaga tells how, in 1971, a series of studies by Seymour Feshbach and Robert D. Singer in human psychology showed that exposure to violent scenes gave people a method to relieve pent-up anger. She then says that video games may encourage "discharge of latent aggressiveness in a socially acceptable way." As many supporting studies as there are for this idea, there are almost an equal number that would say refute this claim. Though this goes to show that there is still much uncertainty in this area regarding the effect of video games, it does not mean we should not consider what the studies suggest. If Ariaga is correct, shouldn't we give violent games more credit for being potentially therapeutic? Critics of these games claim that these games desensitize the player to violence, making them more likely to emulate the actions of their character. Grand Theft Auto sold 1.4 million in the first two weeks after its release. That's more than most of the greatest musicians in history can claim for their CD sales in the same amount of time. If a game like this is so popular, why hasn't there been a rise in violence directly related to the crimes of the game? There has been no increase in cases where prostitutes were killed and robbed; there has been no swell in situations where gangsters runs through America's major cities punching police officers and innocent bystanders. If asked about whether they would ever emulate their video game character, almost every player of Grand Theft Auto would shake their head and laughingly give a "no" in response.

Yet, what about those who might want to be violent? Is it brought about, or even encouraged, by the video game? The United States Secret Service conducted an in-depth study of ten teenage attackers and several violent incidents that occurred in schools around the nation. When investigating how prevalent games were in the attackers' lives, they found that only one eighth of the studied cases showed the killers to exhibit any interest in violent video games. Instead, most found a profound interest in their own violent writings and pictures. Violence is much more internalized than what people want to admit. It always seems like those who commit violent acts look for a scapegoat. In the past, it was demons and witches, now it's rock and rap music, television, and video games. Many times, however, people are simply afraid to admit their own fault and take the weight of their actions on their own shoulder. And why shouldn't they? People will eat those excuses up. Take the Columbine shooting tragedy, which many people are very familiar with; the defining detail about the shooters that was discussed the most in the news was not anything about their personal background or upbringing. Everyone simply remember that they were dressed up in trench coats and looked like the characters in the movie, The Matrix. Suddenly, trench coats weren't allowed in many schools. Because, of course, that was the major issue at hand, right? There was not emphasis on urging parents to create a better environment for their children to grow up in and show them loving acceptance, nor was there a cry for students to cease in behavior that makes others feel inferior or leaves individuals feelings socially exiled. The message was much simpler-trench coats were a major problem, because it was inspired by a violent movie. All fingers were pointing to the violence in popular culture, and this is quiet simply naïve.

A deeper look into the relationship of violent games and a person's upbringing is seen in the research of Jeroen S. Lemmens. In a study on the appeal of violent video games, he took nearly 300 children between 12-17 years old from Belgium and The Netherlands, and had them rate videogames based on their descriptions. He also asked them to name their current favorite games, and tell how often they play any type of video games normally. The results showed that children with lower grades and lower education (this said carefully, of course, based on personal grades and their school's ranking) had more of an addiction to video games than did the other kids. Of these children, those who exhibited an aggressive nature were most attracted to violent games. Does this mean that we should be concerned about less-educated kids getting their hands on these types of games? Not necessarily. Ariaga claims that games can provide therapeutic release of pent-up energy in a way that is socially acceptable. Many children are told to hit a pillow or scream into one, or perhaps to throw some rocks into a lake-these are all looked upon as healthy ways to release anger, used by many anger management specialists. Why then should we discourage video games that let children shoot virtual people, break virtual bones, and kill virtual antagonists? It's an entertaining and challenging way to spend one's time for many. Think about it: if a group of avid chess players began obsessing about the fact that chess is a game about war and battle, then went and set seige to the city hall building, what would happen if they pointed to chess as inspiration for their violence? People would call them crazy; there would be no uprising against the game. Violent video games are also structured around vicious themes in the same way, but people play them for the same reason they play board games-to be challenged, to pass time, to win, and to enjoy time with friends.

In the end, there is little foundation for arguments that say violent video games have an adverse effect on gamers. In a culture where video game popularity is prevalent with youth, there should be an alarming rise in violent crimes from the teenagers and young adults of this country. This simply is not the case. It's even more unreasonable to say that they contribute to a fascination with violence. A brief overview of world history will prove that humans have always been fascinated with the spilling of blood and brutality. An entertaining way to spend your time used to involve watching men mutilate each other in the Roman Coliseum, spending times at the gallows to watch the public hangings of the day, or having a picnic at the crucifixion grounds with the family to enjoy justice being administered to the convicted. Though the fascination with bloodshed and death is a psychological issue for a whole different discussion, isn't it safe to say that violent video games somehow fit into the trend of human history? Compared to what used to be violent entertainment, it seems difficult to condemn these games. Violent people do not need games to help them, because violence seems to be something of which humans are naturally capable. That is why video games are a form of art. Prof. Gillespie makes a very interesting point when he says, "Art tells us who we are and what are capable of. Unfortunately [Grand Theft Auto] does this well, which is what I think scares us." In the end, the issue becomes what is in a person's heart. Perhaps Prof. Gillespie is correct; perhaps violent video games illuminate something deeper about ourselves, and this makes some people uncomfortable because, on a deeper level, they feel exposed. In the words of Shigeru Miyamoto, the creative mind behind many of the popular games for Nintendo Entertainment, "Videos games are bad for you? [laughes] That's what they said about rock and roll."

Sources

Arriaga, Patricia. "Violent computer games and their effects on state hostility and Physiological arousal." Aggressive Behavior. 32.4 (2006): 358-371. EBSCOhost. University of Cincinnati, Cincinnati, OH. 11 May 2007

Cicchirillo, Vincent. "Effects of Affective Orientation and Video Game Play on Aggressive Thoughts and Behaviors." Journal of Broadcasting & Electronic Media. 49.4 (2005): 435-449. EBSCOhost. University of Cincinnati, Cincinnati, OH. 12 May 2007

Gillespie, Thom. "Grand Theft Auto, the Video Game Everyone Loves to Hate, Allows Ethics and Morality Lessons." Technos Quarterly. 11.4. (2002). Indiana University. 30 May, 2007. < http://www.mime.indiana.edu/gta/>

Lemmens, Jeroen S. "The Appeal of Violent Video games to Lower Educated Aggressive Adolescent Boys from Two Countries." CyberPsychology & Behavior. 9.5 (2006): 638-641. EBSCOhost. University of Cincinnati, Cincinnati, OH. 10 May 2007

Liedholm, Marcus. "Shigeru Miyamoto." Nintendo Land. 3 Jun. 2006.

Ravaja, Niklas. "Phasic Emotional Reactions to Video Game Events: A Psycholophysiological Investigation." Media Psychology. 8 (2006): 343-367. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Inc. 11 May 2007

United States. U.S. Secret Service and Department of Education. The Final Report and Finds of the Safe School Initiative: Implications for the Prevention of School Attacks in the United States. Washington D.C. May 2002.