One of the principal advances in mass media in the past few decades has come with the arrival and the brisk growth and evolution of the video game industry. Video games—from the earliest arcade classics to the subsequent introduction of home consoles—have always been incredibly popular among not only adolescents, but a large sect of adults as well. Given the elevated prevalence and influence of the gaming market, social scientists, concerned parents, and others have raised concerns over the potential effects of video games on those who play them—particularly games with violent content, which, incidentally, counts for a large majority of best-selling games currently in the market. However, concerns have been raised with the recent advances in realism and simulation capabilities, enabling development studios to involve an ever-increasing amount of graphic violence.
With the copious amounts of research that attribute video games to violent acts, it appears sagacious and sensible for a significant percentage of individuals to argue that video games as the source of violent actions or tragedies. Studies have displayed through quantitative evidence how gamers maintain higher levels of aggression and have a much higher rate of being violent. For instance, the horrific shooting sprees by chronic video game players at Columbine High School in 1999 and Virginia Tech in 2007, along with the “Beltway” sniper shootings in 2002 have all agitated the public itch to scrutinize the effects of violent video game play (Adachi et al. par. 1). These high-profile instances, alongside a plethora of others, cannot be scientifically grounded and thus cannot provide adequate support for public policy decisions.
However, several correlational studies involving adolescents have reportedly found a “small but significant relation” between playing violent video games and aggression—or the “behavior that is intended to harm another individual” (Adachi et al.par. 1). Furthermore, studies have found that playing violent video games can increase state hostility—at least temporarily. In a study conducted by research psychologists Anderson and Ford in 1986, participants played either a highly aggressive game, a mildly aggressive game, or no game at all (the control). According to the results, hostility significantly differed between the groups, with participants of both aggressive game conditions becoming more hostile than those in the control group (Williams 5). Several mirror studies also found that participants report an increased level of aggression after playing an aggressive game compared to tamer games (Williams 5). Thus, there seems to be a tangible connection between video games and aggression. Whether this aggression is temporary, permanent, or a combination of the two, remains ambiguous in this analysis, however; in a meta-analysis conducted in 2001, findings proved that short-term effects indicated that the length of exposure to violent video games matters, and the initial effects may wear out after a short period of time (Sherry 431). Thus, this study and countless others have perhaps been nullified by further research that invalidates the conclusions made by the original studies.
Although it has become increasingly popular for social scientists and parents to accredit video games as a principal contributor of violence in adolescents, I believe that problems actually originate sometime prior to the influence of video games in violent adolescents. While I agree that video games may instigate aggression in troubled adolescents, I adhere to the opinion that games do not foster genuine, threatening hostility in a previously harmless person. Parents argue that video games provide ideas of what to do and how to do it, and are the reason for why crazed gamers become violently hostile. The blame for tragedies must reside where it belongs—on the people who commit the violent acts, and should not be falsely attributed to video games. Who is to say what makes a person violent? It could be brought on by a child’s home or school environment; it could stem from a fight between siblings, peers, or parents; or it could simply be hereditary.
Regardless of where the aggression comes from, I do agree with the idea that parents should monitor what their kids play or watch. Parents have a substantial amount of influence over what their children are interested in. The more involved parents are in their children’s lives in a positive manner, the more they are able to monitor; furthermore, I believe their positive influence can prevent aggressive or violent behavior in their children. Demonstrating the positive outcomes of this sort of tactic, a recent intervention study found that parental intervention limiting violent video game play has been proven to have a “protective factor,” suggesting a correlation between parental involvement in violent video game habits and verbal and physical aggression (Gentilea et al. 19-20). Interestingly, the study focused on limiting the amount of violent media use at home, rather than focusing specifically on changing habits regarding violent media. Six months into the study, the students who received intervention reported to have reduced aggression ratings, paired with lower observed verbal aggression (Gentilea et al. 20). Thus, parents simply limiting the amount of violent video game play resulted in fewer verbal and physical arguments with their peers, displaying how parental initiative yields decreased hostility.
Sadly, absentee parenting has become a growing trend over the past few decades, however. Parents mistakenly allow their children to be raised by technology, and are quick to point fingers and blame video games or other media for what might be perceived by most as poor parenting. While I disagree that video games foster real-life violence, I do agree that parental involvement in their child’s life can influence the child’s perception of the video game’s realism and message. For this reason, I believe the problems behind crimes like the Columbine shooting were deep-seeded and pre-existing. Some parents should take responsibility for their failure as mentors rather than placing the blame on video games.
There is no denying that video games can be addictive, and addictions are rarely beneficial. There are many parallels between video games and gambling—both psychologically and behaviorally. Video game addiction resembles “pathological gambling”; common components, such as “salience, mood modification, tolerance, withdrawal, conflict, and relapse have been identified and used in various studies” (Van Rooij et al. 490-491). Like gambling, video games are indeed addictive and can easily consume one’s life. Conversely, video game addiction has largely escaped governmental action for the most part in the West, despite being such a highly disputed topic of discussion in the media, in scientific research, and in common prose. In Asia, the situation is different; for example, “China has restricted the hours that young gamers can play online games, while South Korea has government agencies organizing an annual ‘no internet day’” (Van Rooij et al. 491). While this may be impractical in Western Europe or even unconstitutional in the United States, other solutions might be ideal. In an editorial by several European research scholars, an interesting solution is suggested for this issue: “An alternative would be for the company to contact gamers who spend an extreme amount of time in the game and offer them contact information for a referral service” (Van Rooij et al. 492). According to the article, there are similar initiatives in place in the gambling industry, including empirical studies showing that social responsibility tools are appreciated by players (492). While this is indeed a valid suggestion and has merit to be pursued, I believe that there is a much simpler and healthier solution; rather than waiting until the problem of violence arises, it is possible for aggression to be prevented by simply employing good parenting techniques—like those heretofore mentioned.
While I disagree with many social scientists, parents, and others that claim that video games are the source of violence, what we can agree on is that we all want what is best for the adolescent generation. We all want to support America’s youth. We all want them to succeed. None of us, however, wish violence upon anyone, no matter where or how it originated. Most can agree that limiting video games, by both time used and by content, can be beneficial to many adolescents. If parents simply spent more time with their kids and took responsibility for their possible shortcomings as parents, I believe a clear difference could be made.
Works Cited
Gentilea, Douglas A., Lynchb, Paul J., Linderc, Jennifer Ruh, Walsha, David A. “The effects of violent video game habits on adolescent hostility, aggressive behaviors, and school performance.” Journal of Adolescence. Volume 27, Issue 1 (2004): 5–22. 2004. Web. 16 March 2011.
Sherry, J. “The effects of violent video games on aggression: A meta-analysis.” Human
Communication Research, Volume 27, Issue 1 (2001): 409–431. Web. 28 March 2011.
Van Rooij, Antonius J., Meerkerk, Gert-Jan., Schoenmakers, Tim M., Griffiths, Mark, Van de Mheen, Dike. “Video game addiction and social responsibility.” Addiction Research and Theory. Volume 18, Issue 5 (2010): 489–493. October 2010. Web. 28 March 2011.
Williams, Kevin D. “The Effects of Homophily, Identification, and Violent Video Games on Players.” Mass Communication and Society. Volume 14, Issue 1 (2005): 3-24. 2005. Web. 28 March 2011.
No comments:
Post a Comment