If you are TL;DR, I will put the key points in bold throughout the post and in the conclusion so you can still get the jist
Video games are becoming increasingly accused of causing violent behaviour in those who play them, almost exclusively by people who are anti-video game by personal preference and have no acutal understanding of video games or the human psychology surrounding the issue. So if we exclude the motives behind stirring up these accusations and personal opinions for the duration of this post, I am going to explain, using my relatively basic understanding of human psychology, why playing a violent video game does not invariably make you violent; I will attempt to be as unbiased as possible but I have already chosen a side.
When a person is exposed to any form of violent medium, be it a video game or film, a physiological response is created; this is observed through increased heart rate and increased blood pressure probably caused by release of adrenalin; this is known as increased phsyiological arousal and will be referred to as such throughout the rest of this post. As an individual views acts of violence more often, the physiological response associated with it is lessened, much in the same way that a horror movie is scary first time but not second time. The significance of this is individual differences; increased physiological arousal can be caused by a myriad of emotions, fear, excitement, arousal or disgust, and as such, a decreased phsyiological arousal could, and usually does, mean a lessening or absence of these emotions when experiencing violent media, this is known as desensitisation.
The concept of desensitisation in this context is a double-edged sword, firstly, anti-video games; as desensitisation occurs, it is plausible to argue that an individual may be less uncomfortable with viewing or performing acts of violence, increasing aggression in players of violent video games. However, it would also result in people getting absolutely no rush from violence, which some claim is a reason for violence, it is not addictive and so decreased phsyiological arousal would not cause a need to get a better hit.
Several studies have been conducted (I used to know the names, but I forgot, just trust me) and have found that playing violent video games and watching violent movies does induce increased phsyiological arousal and that desensitisation does occur. They have also found that levels of aggression in participants increase after being exposed to violent media; however, the aggression was often found in already aggressive people and usually only last about as long as the physiological response.
Social Learning Theory, proposed by a psychologist called Bandura argues that certain behaviours are learnt through observation of others, particularly role models, and so agression can be learnt. Though this doesn't directly link to video games, the relevance is that, though video games are becoming more and more advanced it is still only a very small portion that develop their characters to the point that anyone could identify with them and choose them as role models. In Bandura's theory the learner must identify the person as a role model or identify with them before the behaviour is copied, and so the lack of potential role models in games, particularly violent ones would reduce the chances of behaviour replication.
The point is, this theory is mostly only true of children as is any similar theory and as such, I am trying to explain why children are unlikely to learn agression from a simulation such as this; besides, most games that develop their characters enough have positive role models (Metal Gear Solid).
This mostly boils down to: "If you don't want your child playing 18+ rated games, don't buy them 18+ games". Children are their parents responsibility, and they are much more likely to become violent from the parents' example than Grand Theft Auto's as they are the child's primary role models.
As one may expect, in studies to investigate the link between video games and aggression there have been mixed results within the sample, some become very aggressive, and others are completely unaffected. One naturally assumes that a third variable is responsible for this difference, which is exactly the name of the theory that states this.
Studies have been conducted to investigate third variable theory and most have found that the people who become most aggressive after playing video games general are generally affected by a third variable known to cause a predisposition to aggression. These can be developmental issues, family issues or just simple genetic predisposition, the point is that these people did not get angry because of the video game, they were already angry, the game just pushed them over the edge(Frustration Aggression hypothesis - Frustration causes aggression) . You can't blame video games for frustrating someone into violence, since other factors made the person so quick to lose their cool and the aggression could have been caused by anything frustrating.
One of the greatest (in my opinion) pro-video game arguments for this case is the Freudian concept of catharsis. If you watch Yahtzee, or are generally intelligent, you already know what catharsis is, but I'll explain anyway; Catharsis is the act of doing a kind of activity that allows you to relieve stress, A very broad definition but it's essentially how squishy stress relievers and crying works.
The catharsis one can achieve through playing violent video games is monumental and is key to stress relief; the truth is, people are frustrated by work, family, people etc and instead of going into work with a kalashnikov or beating their wife, they play video games. I don't have any evidence to support this particular argument relating to catharsis, but I'm fairly certain it's true, and I'm willing to bet that in this particular argument, video games have saved more lives than they've wasted.
TL;DR - Adrenalin makes you agressive - Video games give you adrenalin - Adrenalin wears off
TL;DR - Video games relieve stress, not cause it
TL;DR - Children copy role models - Video games rarely characterise enough to provide role models
TL;DR - Video games piss people off - Some people respond aggressively when frustrated, others don't, the aggression does not originate from the video game
There are many more arguments regarding agression and video games, but this post is already is excess of a thousand words, so I'm going to throw in a quick conclusion with some very important points:
-Correlation is not Causation (This applies to both the accusations and the studies I've mentioned)
-Even if you could claim that GTA caused a teenager to commit murder, you cannot blame the developers. They didn't sell an 18+ game to a minor; the blame rests with the adult who made an uninformed purchase.
-Cases of violence unconnected to video games still outweigh the crimes connected to video games. What made those people murder?
-The amount of people that play violent video games and don't murder. (Third Variable)
And most importantly, people are still people; they have thoughts, opinions and free thought, if they are a normal, functioning member of society, they will know how to behave in society and will always make the choice they believe are right. Those that disrespect society's laws and morals are unlikely to have been forced there by video games, no matter how violent.
"No right thinking person will knowingly commit wrong," -
Disclaimer - This post is relatively watered down in terms of references and psychological knowledge and is missing a great deal of supporting evidence and other relevent information. I wanted to make the post relatively accessible to those casually interested and didn't want to make it far too long. If you enjoyed it and would like more of the same, I could probably conjur up another essay.
Video games are becoming increasingly accused of causing violent behaviour in those who play them, almost exclusively by people who are anti-video game by personal preference and have no acutal understanding of video games or the human psychology surrounding the issue. So if we exclude the motives behind stirring up these accusations and personal opinions for the duration of this post, I am going to explain, using my relatively basic understanding of human psychology, why playing a violent video game does not invariably make you violent; I will attempt to be as unbiased as possible but I have already chosen a side.
When a person is exposed to any form of violent medium, be it a video game or film, a physiological response is created; this is observed through increased heart rate and increased blood pressure probably caused by release of adrenalin; this is known as increased phsyiological arousal and will be referred to as such throughout the rest of this post. As an individual views acts of violence more often, the physiological response associated with it is lessened, much in the same way that a horror movie is scary first time but not second time. The significance of this is individual differences; increased physiological arousal can be caused by a myriad of emotions, fear, excitement, arousal or disgust, and as such, a decreased phsyiological arousal could, and usually does, mean a lessening or absence of these emotions when experiencing violent media, this is known as desensitisation.
The concept of desensitisation in this context is a double-edged sword, firstly, anti-video games; as desensitisation occurs, it is plausible to argue that an individual may be less uncomfortable with viewing or performing acts of violence, increasing aggression in players of violent video games. However, it would also result in people getting absolutely no rush from violence, which some claim is a reason for violence, it is not addictive and so decreased phsyiological arousal would not cause a need to get a better hit.
Several studies have been conducted (I used to know the names, but I forgot, just trust me) and have found that playing violent video games and watching violent movies does induce increased phsyiological arousal and that desensitisation does occur. They have also found that levels of aggression in participants increase after being exposed to violent media; however, the aggression was often found in already aggressive people and usually only last about as long as the physiological response.
Social Learning Theory, proposed by a psychologist called Bandura argues that certain behaviours are learnt through observation of others, particularly role models, and so agression can be learnt. Though this doesn't directly link to video games, the relevance is that, though video games are becoming more and more advanced it is still only a very small portion that develop their characters to the point that anyone could identify with them and choose them as role models. In Bandura's theory the learner must identify the person as a role model or identify with them before the behaviour is copied, and so the lack of potential role models in games, particularly violent ones would reduce the chances of behaviour replication.
The point is, this theory is mostly only true of children as is any similar theory and as such, I am trying to explain why children are unlikely to learn agression from a simulation such as this; besides, most games that develop their characters enough have positive role models (Metal Gear Solid).
This mostly boils down to: "If you don't want your child playing 18+ rated games, don't buy them 18+ games". Children are their parents responsibility, and they are much more likely to become violent from the parents' example than Grand Theft Auto's as they are the child's primary role models.
As one may expect, in studies to investigate the link between video games and aggression there have been mixed results within the sample, some become very aggressive, and others are completely unaffected. One naturally assumes that a third variable is responsible for this difference, which is exactly the name of the theory that states this.
Studies have been conducted to investigate third variable theory and most have found that the people who become most aggressive after playing video games general are generally affected by a third variable known to cause a predisposition to aggression. These can be developmental issues, family issues or just simple genetic predisposition, the point is that these people did not get angry because of the video game, they were already angry, the game just pushed them over the edge(Frustration Aggression hypothesis - Frustration causes aggression) . You can't blame video games for frustrating someone into violence, since other factors made the person so quick to lose their cool and the aggression could have been caused by anything frustrating.
One of the greatest (in my opinion) pro-video game arguments for this case is the Freudian concept of catharsis. If you watch Yahtzee, or are generally intelligent, you already know what catharsis is, but I'll explain anyway; Catharsis is the act of doing a kind of activity that allows you to relieve stress, A very broad definition but it's essentially how squishy stress relievers and crying works.
The catharsis one can achieve through playing violent video games is monumental and is key to stress relief; the truth is, people are frustrated by work, family, people etc and instead of going into work with a kalashnikov or beating their wife, they play video games. I don't have any evidence to support this particular argument relating to catharsis, but I'm fairly certain it's true, and I'm willing to bet that in this particular argument, video games have saved more lives than they've wasted.
TL;DR - Adrenalin makes you agressive - Video games give you adrenalin - Adrenalin wears off
TL;DR - Video games relieve stress, not cause it
TL;DR - Children copy role models - Video games rarely characterise enough to provide role models
TL;DR - Video games piss people off - Some people respond aggressively when frustrated, others don't, the aggression does not originate from the video game
There are many more arguments regarding agression and video games, but this post is already is excess of a thousand words, so I'm going to throw in a quick conclusion with some very important points:
-Correlation is not Causation (This applies to both the accusations and the studies I've mentioned)
-Even if you could claim that GTA caused a teenager to commit murder, you cannot blame the developers. They didn't sell an 18+ game to a minor; the blame rests with the adult who made an uninformed purchase.
-Cases of violence unconnected to video games still outweigh the crimes connected to video games. What made those people murder?
-The amount of people that play violent video games and don't murder. (Third Variable)
And most importantly, people are still people; they have thoughts, opinions and free thought, if they are a normal, functioning member of society, they will know how to behave in society and will always make the choice they believe are right. Those that disrespect society's laws and morals are unlikely to have been forced there by video games, no matter how violent.
"No right thinking person will knowingly commit wrong," -
Disclaimer - This post is relatively watered down in terms of references and psychological knowledge and is missing a great deal of supporting evidence and other relevent information. I wanted to make the post relatively accessible to those casually interested and didn't want to make it far too long. If you enjoyed it and would like more of the same, I could probably conjur up another essay.
