Hawkins 1 Taylor Hawkins Emilia Grant English 1102 April 8th, 2014 Violence in Video Games Does Not

Cause Violence Behavior Video game violence is something that has been a hot topic in the media within the last couple of years. Experts claim that the teenagers have committed horrible crimes, such as murder and school shootings, because of the violence displayed in many of the popular Mature rated games. Many people believe this to be true, ultimately feeding the paranoia of violent video games turning our innocent youth into ruthless murders. However, due to advancements in science and the understanding of how the brain functions, many scientists are stepping and backing the idea that violence displayed in games doesnt cause violence in reality. These scientist claim that the violent tendencies have a much deeper root and, while violent video games may not necessarily help the situation, the games are certainly not the cause of the violence. Like all good arguments there are two sides to an argument, a side in favor and a side in opposition. From these arguments I hope I can determine if violent video games cause violent behavior in children and teens. The first argument for the idea that video games do cause violence comes from a group of scientists that claim that video game violence desensitizes the player to real world violence. Their experiment included the participants playing one of eight violent or non-violent video games for twenty minutes. Next, the participants watched a video depicting real world violence. Researchers found that the participants who previously

Hawkins 2 had played the violent games had a lower heart rate while watching the videotape then participants that had not played the violent game. The researchers then discussed the effects of desensitization support previous research that demonstrates exposure to violent video game increases the aggressive behavior in the participant (Carnagey et. al.). If the two parts of the experiment are done back-to-back then of course the participants are going to be used to the violence, the violence is still fresh in their mind. Maybe if the researchers had waited a while before exposing the participants to the video then the results might have been a little different. The second argument for the effects of video games comes from David Walsh, a child psychologist. Among other things he is known as a co-author for a study connecting violent video games to physical aggression. His argument is based on the fact that the teenager brain is not yet fully developed which can prove to be detrimental if exposed to the violent media. The prefrontal cortex is the area of the brain that is responsible for the impulse control, the part of the brain that allows us to think ahead. This part of the brain is not yet developed until the mid twenties. So when a teenager is exposed to violence for hours and hours, the brain just wires this violence in as a familiar pattern. If that same teenager is put into a situation of emotional stress, there is an increased likelihood that the teenager will go with the familiar pattern of violence that has been wired into the brain. Walsh also goes on to state that not every child who plays violent video games is going to grow up and become violent. He asserts that there needs to be a combination of risk factors. I applaud Dr. Walsh for including in his argument (Leung). Of all the research that I have done, only a few have brought up the idea that something else is wrong inside a persons mind that would drive them to

Hawkins 3 commit violent acts. If someone is going to kill another person they would already need to have that idea planted in their head, playing a video game does not plant the idea, it is just something that the media uses as an excuse to blame for tragic events. The previous paragraph can be argued with the simple fact that parents should not buy these video games for their kids or teenagers. The violent games are rated appropriately and are obviously not for children. The Entertainment Software Rating Board (ESRB) was created for the simple fact to categorize games into ones that were okay for children and others that were not okay for children (ESRB). The kids may ultimately find a way to play these games, but it is also the parents responsibility to teach their kids that what they are exposed to in these games or television is not okay in public life. There is a distinct border between the lines of fantasy violence and real violence and while video games may blur these lines within the games, that is exactly where it needs to stay, within the video games. The last two resources have simply focused on the negative effects of video games. There is known research that proves while the effects of the video games do make an imprint on the player this can be used towards the betterment of the player. A study done by Douglas Gentile and his colleagues shows that the content of the video game does matter, adding support to the argument violent games cause violent behaviors. However, they wanted to prove that there are potential prosocial benefits to video games that include content where players are taught to help one another. They found in their study that participants that played prosocial game had immediate shortterm prosocial effects. They also found that if these prosocial games are played early on that they can lead to increased prosocial behaviors later on. There would also be

Hawkins 4 increased tendencies to pick out prosocial games over violent games. The researchers concluded with that video games are not inherently good or bad, just as a tool is not good or bad. I support their findings, even though I believe that video games do not cause violent behavior. A child should not be exposed to violence at a young age, whether in video games or not, they should be exposed to prosocial content that will benefit them later in life. A child should be taught how to interact with people, video games arent the proper tool for this, prosocial or antisocial. (Greitemeyer, et. al) A second argument on how video games can help, even in the educational system, comes from the book written by James Paul Gee. In the book, What Video Games Have to Teach Us About Learning and Literacy, Gee focuses on the cognitive development of a person that is playing the video games when one of the puzzles of the game is presented to them. Gee feels that even violent video games can have a positive effect on the player. He states among other things that individuals learn from video games how to evaluate and follow and command and how one perceives the world. He also goes on to explain how schools could incorporate these games in order to teach their students concepts that are difficult to explain and grasp through the use of video games (Gee). As a student, I think that I would rather learn a concept through a game then having the teacher sit up there and drone on about it. This probably could not be done at the college level, but instituting video games to teach basic concepts in elementary and middle school could benefit students. A time when learning those basic skills are crucial for building a foundation for their higher education and even skills they could use in the real world.

Hawkins 5 The first argument opposing the idea that video games do not cause violent behavior can be supported by one of the most genetic of my arguments. In 2008, scientists found a gene that is potentially the source of increased aggressive and antisocial behavior. Monoamine oxidase A (MAOA) regulates several messagecarrying chemicals called neurotransmitters that are important in aggression, emotion and cognition such as serotonin, dopamine and norepinephrine. The researchers also pointed out that while the gene may be present, the environment still plays a role in how a child behaves. If the risk factors are there, then yes, violent behavior will ensue and on the other hand if the other risk factors are absent then the child may behave, as society requires them to. While this claim may seem like concrete evidence not a lot of research has been done on the gene (Fox). This is definitely an important step to make in the direction of determining the origin of violence, although we still have a long way to go before we can start pointing fingers at what is to blame for the violent behavior in children or teens. The second argument states that the game mechanics are to blame for the aggression in players not the violent content in the game. The study was done with researchers from the University of Oxford. Researchers created two versions of the popular game Half-Life: a normal, violent one and a modified less violent one. Then some of the participants were given tutorials while others were excluded from this. They found that the participants, who had played the less violent version and were not given a tutorial, had more aggression and felt less competent then the participants who were given the normal version and a tutorial. Players have a psychological need to come out on top when playing these games. If they feel that the design or controls of the games

Hawkins 6 are stopping them from doing so, rather than their own incompetence, then they are more likely to become aggressive towards the game (Lee). Speaking from my own experience, this research is the only one that I can personally relate to. When I play video games with my more skilled friends, I get angry, and sometimes violent, when I lose to them. I almost always blame me losing on the controller or the game, even when I know that I lost because I was not good at the game. The third argument includes looking towards psychological disorders as the reason for aggressive behavior. Christopher Ferguson and Cheryl Olsen did a study last year that focused on teenagers that were high risk. The researchers found that nei ther exposure to video game violence nor the interaction between trait aggression and exposure to video game violence were predictive of delinquent outcomes. This experiment included participants that were either clinically depressed or had elevated attention deficit disorder. They found that the video games did not increase bullying or antisocial behavior, but rather produced a cathartic effect and reduce aggressive tendencies (Ferguson and Olsen). This type of research is necessary to disprove popular belief because of the increased media on school shooting and how the media links the fact that the teenagers were depressed and that the violent video games trained them how to kill. In order for this research to make a statement they should reproduce the same experiment with teenagers that are not considered high risks and compare the results. The fourth argument that refutes the idea that violent games causes violent behaviors comes from the multimodal medium of YouTube. More specifically it is a video of a TV show called Bullshit that is hosted by Penn and Teller. These two bring in

Hawkins 7 experts that explain why the scare with violent video games is unnecessary, but they also bring in experts who support the other side as well so that the argument is all balanced out and does not seem one-sided and biased. The experts this episode they bring in are Dr. Lawrence Kutner and Dr. Cheryl Olson who begin by explaining that some people are so obsessed with finding a link between violence in video games and violent behavior that they will perform an experiment and when finding the smallest piece of evidence blow it up and present it as the fact that proves that link. They said they discovered this when congressmen asked them to do research with video games and to link it to the recent violent school shootings. Dr. Olsen continues to explain that playing video games is such a common activity now that it is hard to look at these violent crimes and say they found an Xbox in the house so that must be the reason. They used an experiment from the FBI that concluded that the only thing they found in common with these school shootings was that the shooters were male and tended to be depressed and in fact teens involved in violent crimes had dropped significantly despite violent video games skyrocketing in popularity. Nowhere in their report do they support or even entertain the idea that video games were the cause. The doctors feel that the parents are responsible for the informing themselves when buying these violent games for their kids (Penn and Teller) Going back to the beginning of this whole inquiry project, I feel that I have really grown since my initial topic, which was Misconceptions of Video Games. At that point I had already felt strongly about violence in video games, however, I felt that would not be enough of a topic in order to write a full length paper. I learned very quickly that this was not the case. I then focused my attention onto violence in video games and how

Hawkins 8 people believe that they cause violent behavior in children and teens. The plethora of information and resources I found just by doing a simple search reassured me that narrowing down my topic was not a wrong decision. I feel that this inquiry paper really allowed us to grow mainly because that is exactly what we did. We started out small with just finding sources, to performing the Burkean Metaphor with our sources, to finally writing the paper. At that point I was so well accustomed with my sources I felt that I really was an expert. The most shocking point of my research was when I discovered that scientists had found a gene they believe is linked to increased aggression and antisocial behavior. Of course, they also stated that there has to be environmental risk factors for the gene to be expressed otherwise its environment suppresses the gene. In conclusion, after all the research that has been done on both sides I can say that my feelings towards violent video games have not changed but instead have been reinforced. Reiterating the argument for violent video games causing violent behavior, Dr. Walsh was the best for this side with his argument about the prefrontal cortex development sucking up the violence from the games, but even he stated that it depends on the risk factors. The argument from the other side about the MAOA, or the violence gene, being responsible also talks about risk factors and that if all of the factors are not there then there will be no aggressive or antisocial behavior. Taking all of this in to consideration, I feel that video games are not the source of the violent teens that the media has been so hyped up about. That being said, I feel that parents need to use extreme discretion when buying violent, mature rated games for their kids. These games are meant for adults not children. If we took this into consideration, then there

Hawkins 9 would never be an argument to begin with because only adults, the people supposed to be playing these games, would have access to them.

Hawkins 10 Works Cited Carnagey, Nicholas L., Craig A. Anderson, and Brad J. Bushman. "Erratum to The Effect of Video Game Violence on Physiological Desensitization to Real-life Violence [J. Exp. Social Psychol. 43 (2007) 489496]". Journal of Experimental Social Psychology 43 (2007): 489-96. Print. ESRB. "Frequently Asked Questions". FAQs about ESRB. ESRB, n.d. Web. 29 Apr. 2014. Fox, Maggie. "Study Finds Genetic Link to Violence, Delinquency". Reuters. Thomson Reuters, 14 July 2008. Web. 07 Apr. 2014. Gee, James P. What Video Games Have to Teach Us About Learning and Literacy . New York: Palgrave Macmillan, 2003. Print. Greitemeyer, Tobias, and Silvia Osswald. Prosocial Video Games Reduce Aggressive Cognitions. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology 45.4 (2009): 896-900. Print. Jillette, Penn, and Raymond Teller. "Penn and Teller: Bullshit! - Season 7 Episode 3 - Video Games." YouTube. Showtime, 05 Jan. 2013. Web. 12 Mar. 2014. Lee, Dave. "Aggression from Video Games 'linked to Incompetence'" BBC News. BBC News Technology, 7 Apr. 2014. Web. 13 Apr. 2014. Leung, Rebecca. "Can A Video Game Lead To Murder?" CBSNews. CBS Interactive, 4 Mar. 2005. Web. 10 Mar. 2014. Nauert, Rick. "In New Study, Video Games Not Tied to Violence in High-Risk Youth |

Hawkins 11 Psych Central News." Psych Central.com. Psych Central, 27 Aug. 2013. Web. 10 Mar. 2014.