“Violent video games raise players to be aggressors and killers” is a favorite parable of their enemies, from politicians to parents to teachers. It is easy to conclude that video games teach violence. In them, one often plays the role of a criminal or a soldier: the game gives the gamer many sophisticated ways to destroy the enemy and rewards skillful killing. Could this be good for the psyche?
Mass fear is still being hyped by the media, to whom witch-hunting makes a lot of money. When it turned out that the killers of the mass school shootings in the United States (1999 – Columbine, 2012 – Sandy Hook) were gamers, the headline “it’s all video games’ fault” was reverberating from the pages of magazines. What to say about the case of the 18-year-old kid in 2003 who, after playing GTA, stole a car and killed three cops, after which he said: “Life is a video game, everyone is going to die someday.”
≠ CONNECTION ≠ CONSEQUENCE
Fortunately, in today’s world, fear has less power over society than it may seem. Between 2002 and 2010, 13 U.S. states put forward laws designed to ban the sale of violent video games to children. All of them were based on the idea that video games teach violence. And they were all ultimately rejected by the courts.
In 2011, the U.S. Supreme Court stood up for video games as free speech, it also ruled that fears of violent video games are greatly exaggerated. Justice Scalia wrote: “Existing studies <…> do not prove that violent video games cause minors to behave aggressively, <…> [instead they] show at most a connection between the consumption of violent entertainment and small effects in real life…”
To clarify. The fact is that the media and even academics often ignore a simple logical rule: if B happened after A, it doesn’t mean that A made B happen.
The vast majority of studies of violent video games have been done by the correlational method. Roughly speaking, people were asked if they played violent video games and then tested their aggressiveness and asked if they fought and carried weapons. In the end, some scientists obtained data that gamers, on average, are more aggressive and do more violent things than non-gamers. However, these results do not mean that video games have taught players to be violent.
People who are already prone to aggression and lawbreaking may gravitate toward games-just as they may gravitate toward playing sports or watching war movies. Then it is true that the general population of gamers will include a lot of people who do aggressive things (and the survey will show this). However, this does not mean that video games have somehow increased their aggressive tendencies or that every video game fan is a potential criminal. And we have reason to think so.
HOBBY FOR AGGRESSIVE PEOPLE
So, in 2012, scientists from the United States conducted a survey of 7,000 high school students. They were interested in whether the experience of playing violent video games was related to violence, carrying weapons, alcohol and drug use, skipping school, stealing and so on.
The overall result of the surveys painted a scary picture: boys who like violent video games are 67% more likely to break the rules, 63% more likely to commit violent acts, and 81% more likely to use psychoactive substances. Similar results were obtained for girl gamers.
Fortunately, the scientists didn’t stop there. They analyzed the same data, but taking into account the 154 personality characteristics and living conditions of the participants. Roughly speaking, for each gamer, they found a twin: a schoolboy, maximum similar to him in character and circumstances, but not playing video games. It turned out that there were no differences in aggressive behavior between such “twins. An African-American from the ghetto who had never held a joystick was just as likely to steal as his “gamer” brother.
It turns out that violent video games alone do not influence schoolchildren’s behavior, and the key lies somewhere in the characteristics of the family and/or the individual’s personality. And the overall result of the survey is simply evidence that people who are already prone to aggression gravitate toward a gaming hobby.
OR MAYBE GAMING DOES HAVE AN EFFECT AFTER ALL?
At this point, there are not many papers where scientists have studied the effects of violent video games not by survey, but in the lab. For example, in a 2005 study, one group of men played a shooter game and another group played an innocent puzzle game. After the game session, participants were seated against each other and forced to compete for reaction speed. The winner had to “punish” the loser by pressing a button: then a siren horn sounded over the loser’s ear. The volume and duration of the horn depended on how hard and for how long the winner pressed the button. It turned out that the shooter players pressed the button harder and longer than the puzzle players. That is, they behaved more aggressively.
In another 2007 study, people were forced to play a violent video game and then they were shown a video clip of real violence and their arousal (heart rate and electrical activity in the skin) was assessed. It turned out that violent video game players were more neutral when they saw violent scenes.
Does this mean that violent video games do teach violence? No. An increase in aggression immediately after a game does not mean that one becomes more aggressive in life. An outburst of aggression can fade quickly without any lasting effects. Not to mention the fact that an attack by loud noise bears little resemblance to actual violence. Relying on this data when talking about the actions of murderers and even school bullies is categorically inadmissible.
The same can be said of “indifference” to scenes of violence. Resistance to the sight of blood does not mean a willingness to hurt someone. Perhaps this video game effect explains why many military personnel are drawn to play video games immediately after missions. This may reduce the significance for them of the terrifying scenes that damaged their psyche – and prevent them from developing PTSD (post-traumatic stress disorder).
WHAT MAKES A PERSON A CRIMINAL?
As usual, there is no easy answer to a complex question. However, many studies show that propensities for aggression and breaking the law are largely caused by genes. Roughly speaking, some people are born with a predisposition to violence and crime. This does not mean that such a person will necessarily become a criminal. The conditions of growing up – for example, horrible family circumstances (beatings, sexual abuse, humiliation) play an important role. But even this is not enough. In order to commit a crime, a person must face a “catalyst.” This can be a divorce, the death of a family member, dismissal, and the like. Of course, life can break any one of us, but a person “with proclivities” can also be pushed to crime by a weak catalyst.
Could video games be this “weak catalyst” for people with disabilities? Based on scientific evidence, not likely. In 2015, scientists showed that violent video games do not provoke aggressive behavior in people with autism (the Sandy Hook school killer was diagnosed with Asperger’s syndrome). They also found no link between video games and violent behavior in children with attention deficit disorder and symptoms of depression.
Also worth looking at is a U.S. Secret Service study which found that among those involved in school shootings only 12% enjoyed playing violent video games, 24% read violent books, and 27% watched violent movies. These numbers are unusually low, given the extent of violent media consumption among normal teenagers. Furthermore, the vast majority of shootings occur in the U.S., while video games are popular all over the world.
According to some scholars, violent media – particularly video games – can be a “stylistic catalyst. They do not in themselves provoke crime, but they “frame” it. A person who is prone to violence will manifest his aggressiveness in the way that violent media have taught him. Without violent movies, shows, and games, this person would still fight, steal, and kill, just do it differently. The 18 year old murderer mentioned above would still be killing people, but not GTA style.
SCIENTISTS SAY NO.
Up until now, my reasoning has been based on the assumption that some evidence about the link between violent video games and aggression exists. In fact, there are rebuttal articles for many of the articles that provide evidence for this link, where a follow-up study simply did not find this evidence (2002, 2009, 2010, 2008, 2009, 2011, and so on).
In 2016, researchers compared violent video game players and puzzle players as follows: after a game session, they were asked how many needles they would stick into a “voodoo doll” symbolizing their interlocutor. The study design resembled the one where players had to “punish” the other with a siren horn. However, no differences between the groups were found here.
Do not forget the following: while the consumption of violent video games from 1996 to 2011 only increased, the number of juvenile crimes in the U.S. steadily declined – as much as 80%!
CONCLUSION
And 6 years later, the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision is consistent with scientific reality. To say that violent video games teach cruelty is a harmful myth. Of course, research must continue. However, it is important that the media stop “video game hunting.” Pressure from the media, politicians, and frightened parents only hurts the search for truth: after all, scientists do not work in a vacuum, and when you expect to find a problem, you find it.