Do video games cause violence?

Do video games cause increased aggression among children?

Reading the evidence can keep a boy going for a long time. And it has. Other people may find video games addictive. Me? Well reading the academic studies is proving a hard habit to break.

The American Psychological Association appears to be convinced that the answer to the question at the beginning of this post is yes.

This prime mover in reaching this conclusion has been Professor Craig Anderson of Iowa State University. And Anderson pops up every time there is a big political debate on the topic and every time there is a court case.

He believes that the evidence is clear and strong.

Anderson put his case firmly in evidence before Congress, arguing that the impact of violent video games on violent behaviour was similar to the impact of smoking on the incidence of lung cancer. In  particular he cites experimental evidence that after ten minutes playing a violent game subjects were more likely to behave in an aggressive manner.

Reading his evidence, however, it is hard to escape the feeling that he is overstating his case. In particular it is not clear whether his correlations are really causal. And it is not clear how long the impact of the game might last.

The science journalist Benjamin Radford is sceptical:

The approximately 200 studies on media violence are remarkable primarily for their inconsistency and weak conclusions. Some studies show a correlation between television and violence; others don't.

The assertion that video games make people violent got a boost in May of 2000, when the American Psychological Association issued a press release saying that violent video games can increase aggression. That conclusion was taken from a study by two researchers, Craig Anderson of Iowa State University and Karen Dill of Lenoir-Rhyne College in North Carolina. The pair claimed that they had found a link between violent video games and aggression.

Yet an examination of what the researchers actually found shows how tentative their conclusions are. The study seems to show some association between the playing of violent video games and concurrent aggressive behavior and delinquency. Yet, as any social sciences or psychology student knows, correlation does not imply causation.

He also points out that real world evidence of the impact of games is slight.

Radford's scepticism was shared by the Illinois District Court when it carefully reviewed the evidence while ruling on the constitutionality of a new state game law.

Having established that some of Anderson's research produced contradictory results and that other parts produced impressive statistics only be including the throwing of snowballs in a list of aggressive behaviours, the Court ruled that:

Neither Dr Anderson’s testimony nor his research establish a solid causal link between violent video game exposure and aggressive thinking and behavior.

Researchers in this field have not eliminated the most obvious alternative explanation: aggressive individuals may themselves be attracted to violent video games.

Even if one were to accept the proposition that playing violent video games increases
aggressive thoughts or behavior, there is no evidence that this effect is at all significant.

Dr Anderson provided no evidence supporting the view that playing violent video games has a lasting effect on aggressive thoughts and behavior – in other words, an effect that lingers more than a short time after the player stops playing the game.

Based on general psychological theories and long-term studies of television and movie violence, Dr. Anderson hypothesizes that frequently and intensely playing violent video games will have a lasting effect on young players. He does not, however, cite any data or studies to back up his hypothesis

Doesn't this ruling fly in the face of common sense? Isn't it obvious that these highly distasteful games must be damaging?

Not really.

For there is a rather obvious common sense point to be made in favour of the games. That is that players realise what they really are - games.

A major part of personality research stresses how we behave differently in different circumstances. Let me give you an example. Only a small proportion of children who are picky eaters at home or at school are picky eaters in both places. We compartmentalise.

Perhaps this insulates children somewhat from the impact of the games they are playing.

Tanya Byron's new task force is seeking better information for parents and other users of video games. This seems reasonable. One cannot be enthusiastic about the idea that young children are participating in horrible games.

But we should keep cool. The evidence justifying a more draconian stance is pretty thin.

Comments

[Michael]

The question should be: Why are violent video games so popular? Children who find it difficult to interact well either with adults or with each other (for whatever reason) become frustrated, angry and introverted.

Violent video games are popular among these children because they allow a spectacular outlet for their anger. They don't cause violent behaviour, but they are designed to appeal to disillusioned young people who are more likely to become violent. But nor are they harmless; children need to spend their time developing social skills.

[Matt]

Bullshit.

[mike]

Do you really believe these games are only bought by disillusioned young people?

"Grand Theft Auto IV" which i am sure will fit this category of violent, anti-social etc is predicted to sell 9 million units in the USA by October.

That is a lot of angry kids.

In fact it will sell because it offers ESCAPISM, exactly the same as TV and movies.

[Tim]

There's clearly a correlation: I spent my youth playing Super Mario Brothers, and now I'm an Italian plumber

[Joe]

I'm one of this "video-game generation" that everyone is so worried about, and still enjoy playing the most violent video games out there.
The truth is that games of a violent nature could only have an impact on you if there was some underlying mental condition which precipitate violence in the real world anyway.
Most video games use gore like the "Hammer Horror" films of old, they are only a target now because we think we know so little about them, but in my own wide experience of playing video games I have never felt any urge to be violent outside my video game experiences, and I still faint at the sight of real blood!

[JD]

As a child in the 1990s or in my adult life, I have never been afraid of the youth who spend multiple hours plugged into a game. It has always been the ones out at 11pm or later that have been scary. If bullies are usually bigger or stronger, does that mean sports cause violence n youths?

[Ian Bryan]

Isn’t the problem? The scary people that make scary reports to earn profit that would if the reality was allowed to show through - just fade away. The scary pundits that find it’s the only way to get noticed. The BBC. The newly invented Political Elite that if they couldn’t scare us they would be faced with real people in Government – god forbid, government by the people for the people.
The least scary place on the planet is in front of the computer, in an imaginary but safe world, knowing that if the computer is turned off the reality of the real world is more damaging.
As someone here has already said 9 million people using one game, proportionately are those 9 million prone to violence than any other sector?
The State spends so much time trying to frighten us, that if there was no alternative world there would be drink!

[Michael]

Yes, 9 million is a lot of kids. Why do they prefer violent games for their escapism? Is there a correlation between what they like to escape INTO and what they need to escape FROM?

[Edwin Smith]

if a direct link exists between violent games and violent actions in real life then surely statistically the group that plays these games the most would be the most effected right?

Now the people who play the games the most are the guys (and girls) in QA and games development for these games. I know during any game that I have had to help with QA normally means I have completed the game at least a hundred times.

For example I know for a fact I have decapitated 1000's of bandits and killed maybe a million people in Fable since I first played the game, the same when I tested GTA 3, by the end I could do mission one blindfolded. I have done missions where you had to decapitate 50 people in 5 minutes, my friends who work at Rockstar spend months of their lives playing Manhunt 1 and 2 (before the edits) yet I know no-one in the games industry who has been done for mass violence and killings (or even violent assault).

Last time I checked John Carmack has not gone on a killing spree because he helped make Doom and Wolfenstein.

The fact of the matter is you have a certain percentage of crazy people in this world and crazy is as crazy does.

A crazy killer might like playing violent games because it simulates what they like (killing people) but playing violent games does not do the opposite and make you a killer.

If this was true all readers of Karl Marx would be communist, all readers of the Bible are Christian and readers of the Qu'ran would be Muslim.

For example Christians will read the Bible but this does not mean everyone who reads the Bible is Christian. Sadly it appears people don't think about the logic and just use the sound-bites of this reverse (and flawed) logic.

As I mentioned violent people might gravitate towards violent games, books and films but it statistically this is more likely to be due to an underlying condition (they like violence) not because "the games made them do it".

Edwin

[Moneyshot]

How many times has this been dragged up over the years.
Its the break down of the family and the social network for the rise Violents.
Ive played games since the age of 5 im now 31.Ive never been in trouble with the law,Im not a crazed loner etc.
Concerate on parents not giving a stuff about what there kids are doing watch etc...not Games that must be brought for them since they have R18 labels on them.

[michael walsh]

I think it is reasonable to say that violent people will not be made less violent by playing video games. However, having grown up on a diet of violent cartoons and toys, followed in later childhood by violent video games, i can now literally not hurt a fly without being very seriously coerced into doing so. my own experience is that the least violent people play the most violent games, and the most violent are far more likely to enjoy contact sports and have no interest in such games.

for me, cases such as the school massacre (in germany i think?) where the child had modelled his school as a level for an online shooter serve to underline the fact that it is mostly the quiet ones with stores of bottled-up anger who end up picking up weapons and committing these sorts of atrocities: a gun sidesteps the need for physical (contact) aggression which would go badly for the attacker, whilst allowing them their "vindication"... i am generalising, but then again there is a common thread which runs through highschool or college massacres: the antagonist is usually a (normally) quiet & retiring young male, who feels threatened, bullied or put-upon by others. these people are also, for want of a better word, weedy. In such cases, violent games could be seen as an expression of a normally impotant form of rage.

...however, in most cases people simply play such games because it is fun to fire make-believe lasers at your friends, or whatnot...

anyway, what i was saying was that violent people may play violent games, but violent games will not make people violent in my experience and that of people i know. I have yet to hear somebody who plays violent games suggest that they cause violence.

[Rob]

To be honest, I always laugh at the old "violent video games mean violent kids". When I was younger I played "violent" games because they were not real life, take out my "aggression" in the game. It is just laughable that they can be blamed for everything, anyone thought to question the way these kids are brought up?

[Andrew Crystall]

Sir;

I would advise that you buy and read a book called "Grand Theft Childhood", which is due out in three weeks.

It is based on an extensive study and cuts though much of the existing nonense in the media and among less well informed social scientists about the true effects of computers and gaming on younger people.

When parents are buying 18-rating games for small children, that is a reflection on them as parents and not a reflection on games.

[Dean]

Isn't it horrible to imagine that humans are capable of violence? Thousands of years of survival in the face of pretty violent foes seem to have left a mark on us.

Darn.

[JSB]

I can talk from my experience. I played lots of more or less violent video games as a teenager and it made me feel like being violent.

Naturally, violent games feed the player with violence... then it can come out more easily. And if you don't behave violently at least you will waste your time in front of a screen. I know, I could play for 6 hours straight in a day.

But if you feed the player with peaceful things he will be fed on peace.
Like food. You eat rotten food, you might throw up. Eat healthy food, it will help build your body.

[Edd]

lol - if computer games like pacman affected us, we'd all be running around in darkened rooms, listening to repetitive electronic music and munching pills

[JForce]

No there isn't. Because the majority of people playing these violent games are from non-violent worlds. I have grown up in the most normal, well adjusted manner possible, and yet I enjoy violent games as much as anyone.
The amount of money that goes into this area would be far better spent on proven causes of violence, such as domestic circumstances etc.

[Zack]

Considering the studies come from a country which has a constitution to allow firearms in the possesion of real people with real anger issues, I fail to see why videogames are being made into an issue. I see more violence when I watch the news, and videogames have never made me apathetic to what I see in reality.

[Clive]

If we go into any toy store we can buy plastic swords and shields,gun..etc for our children to play with. And has many parents no to there cost a game with swords or bow and arrows can end in tears or a trip to accident unit. But with a video game there is no actual physical contact, just a use of clever cgi`s. And most young people to grasp the make believe world of a game and the real world of a lost member of there family due to gun crime.

[Gman]

Its hard to think of something original and insightful to post when even the most basic and well known arguments against the correlation between violence in games and the real world go largely ignored.

As an avid gamer, not just of violent games but nevertheless, I find it hard to believe there is any link between the violence conducted onscreen and violence someone may inflict offscreen.

However, I can accept that in some isolated cases it may be true. But given that there may be only very few instances of this occuring, it is impractical to say that the game is the causal factor. I'm no psychologist so I won't presume to guess what such other causal factor might be, but the idea of censoring or banning violent media such as games seems to be a knee-jerk reaction to a situation the government and pressure groups have no idea how to handle effectively.

[Bram]

@ Michael those 9 million aren't all kids. Actually the average age of gamers today is somewhere in their mid-twenties. When parents take an active interest in this hobby like they do with other hobbies, they would learn a lot about gaming and maybe understand it better.

But all in all the same happend with books, radio, music, television and movies and they are all accepted forms of media these days.

[Charles]

I someone who regularly plays computer games. I buy computer games on a regular basis. i have seen just about every classification system known to man on these games. reading the times today I discovered that Dr.Byron claims that these rating systems are unclear and that she is pushing for a "clearer classification system". I am left to wonder precisely how many games she has looked at, and precisely which ones; because the game ratings I have seen are on average much clearer, certainly than any film rating I have seen. I fail to see how anyone could call the system unclear without either having some kind of ulterior motive or being severely lacking in mental abilities. there is an age rating, often more precise than the film ratings as the games do not just use 18 and 15. then, if the game contains material that might be specifically worrying to the user, there are a series of symbols which are fairly plain in their meaning(a syringe and some pills would indicate that the game contains drug references, a brandished fist that it contains violence etc.) the ratings are demonstrably clear to anyone who takes 1/4 of a second to actually look at them. also she seems to think that there is a swarm of toddlers playing games like the manhunt series. no shop I know will break the age categories that blatantly, although i admit that some shops will break the categories to a lesser degree. it is in almost every cited case the parents who have provided the child with these games and then left little Timmy alone with Uberviolence 5 (NB: fictitious game used for effect, there is, so far as i am aware no 'Uberviolence' series of games) surely the responsibility of censorship lies, if with anyone with the child's parents, not the government.

[Jen]

Is it possible to get ANY games (suitable for teenagers and adults) that is NOT violent. And not sports either.

[Samantha]

Why has no-one in these discussions made the comparison with cigartete smoking? If a character in a TV series is shown smoking there is a huge hullaballoo, but then we are told violent games have no impact. Am I the only person to see the huge dsicrepancy here? Either they are both bad, or both innocent, which is it?

[Lisa]

An alternative explanation for some people becoming violent is that they're sitting around for hours on end eating junk food. Maybe it's a combination of: no exercise, pent up energy and bad diet. That's enough to make anyone cranky.

[San Ying]

What a dumb-dumb question. No wonder there is so much violence today.

[Mart]

I'm a big gamer myself, and I have played some of the more graphic and gruesome offerings out there. To that end, I can categorically state that I have NEVER, not even once, had the urge to find myself an assault rifle and shotgun and go around blowing seven shades of s*** out of anything that moves.

Charles makes a very valid point above, which I agree with wholeheartedly: the act of keeping exceedingly violent fare away from kids is the job of the parents

[Byron]

Thanks Daniel - great article. Appreciate you giving us both sides of the issue.

JD - well said.

Great discussion yet on the wrong topic. What we should discuss is how people get away with doing this in the name of science.

Here's the process Dr. Anderson used:

Person _(fill in blank)_, with credentials, makes radical claim. Professional Organization backs up the claim and/or media reports the claim as being valid. People immediately divided over the claim debate, refute, etc. the claim. (see fantastic comments above!)

Person who made the claim becomes famous, receives fabulous grant money, writes book, speaks as expert, bloggers/journalist write more articles, and the cycle continues.

Think for yourself. Remember that the experts once told us, with full confidence, that the world was FLAT.

[Will]

"What a dumb-dumb question. No wonder there is so much violence today"

Its this kind of glib response that stifles effective debate. Have you considered writing for the Mail?

I think there is actually an inverse correlation between media scaremongering about man-hunt 2 and gamers who actually care about playing the game.
Quite why the papers need to give this mediocre game ten times the exposure it could ever achieve normally is completely beyond me. Then I remember that that accusing films of subverting our youth is no longer fashionable. As the world braces itself for the fifth iteration of the sadistic bonanza that is the Saw franchise, we can only hope that people will calm down, and accept some damn personal responsibility

[Matt, Chicago]

I'd like to point out as a gamer that the industry has grown to such a size and depth of complexity now that it no longer really makes sense to speak about videogames, or even violent ones, in such an all-encompassing manner. Each game can be substantially different from the next in the way that it deals with violence, as far as appropriate use or level of realism, etc... Take Manhunt 2, for example, which I understand has stirred up quite a controversy in the UK. While the game might have shocked and angered many, all this has done is masked the fact that Manhunt truly sucks as a game. It's terrible, believe me. The studio that developed it realized that it was terrible and decided to add in some terrifying genital mutilation to stir up controversy, with little regard for what that would do to their already shallow story. Conversely I would point to games like Halo or Mass Effect that have highly detailed, cinematic storylines with complex plots and characters, and rightly deserve to be called works of art in the same way that films are.
My point is that this monolithic depiction of games as either good or bad misses the fact that there are some of both. One might as well claim that 'movies are bad for our children' or 'books are bad for our children' simply because some of them are. As the genre matures along with it's consumer base I'm sure we'll see it held in higher esteem, with fewer of these outbreaks of panicky legislative BS that we seem to be experiencing now.

[Sedgwick Morrison]

If what you see on your TV/video screen does not influence you then why do advertising companies bother with their multimillion dollar ad campaigns?...I for one, after playing GTR2 the motoracing sim, tend to find myself driving my real car that bit more recklessly, sad but true.

[Leslie Corrin]

The truly worrying fact behind all of this mass-panic, is the knee-jerk reaction by government wishing to impose either more controls or taxes, whether it be about video games, alcohol, obesity etc, and the call for the ubiquitous 'expert' report, which inevitabley confirms and compounds the problem, rather than institute rational debate! could it be that the experts are following the traddition of 'he who pays the piper, calls the tune', or is it merely they are afraid of going against the currently accepted trend of thought, as with climate change, those who back the idea have media saturation, whilst those with opposing views and data very rarely seem to be taken seriously. Meanwhile, whilst we are all discussing these trivial matters the real problems concerning the actions of local and central governments systematically destroying our civil liberties, imposing stealth taxes, reducing real policing and decimating our education system are being overlooked.

We need to concentrate on cause of problems in society, most of which are created by the government and their incessant miniscule interference in our daily lives to the point were parents are not allowed to discipline their own children without state intervention, but are then blamed for not taking control of their offspring!

[Jake]

Video gaming is disapproved of, because like all new media, it is distrusted at first. This is true of almost all commonly accepted things today-radio,television,film, and even Internet. There are studies showing that there is a correlation between violent video games and aggressive behavior but there are two things to keep in mind: 1) Correlation does equate to causation, it means there are trends and 2) there were higher correlations with movies and music than with games.
I also must agree with Bram and San Ying. The rating system is not a clear cut rule system and should not be treated as such. It is the recommendation of a certain panel (varying on where one lives) and in my personal opinion-they're either too lenient or too strict, depending on public opinion and culture. Ratings are guidelines for parents, the people who are supposed to protect their children, yet in my country they are enforced as law. As a gamer, this makes absolutely no sense to me, but what do I know? After all, I don't believe in bureaucracy or appealing to fickle public opinion.
What I believe is causing the "increase" in violence (BTW, USA crime among young adults-the gaming crowd-is actually down over the past 10 yrs) is more media coverage (the availibilty heuristic-if you remember it, you'll use it as reference, whether or not it's accurate), a society that misplaces blame and is far too tolerant in the wrong places as well as intolerant in others. The anti-gaming attitude is like that of global warming-pros get money, cons get shunned as pariahs and several other unpleasant names.

[Jack Sprat]

Your assumptions and conclusions are incomplete and flawed, especially concerning young minds.
1) You miss the most fundamental point of all: why is it civilised behaviour to fantasize and enjoy acts of extreme graphic violence? Your asssumption "its only a game" is untrue; does that mean anything is OK in a game? Would it be acceptable to have a game involving paedaphiles and child abuse? I think not, in which case it reveals the flawed hypocrisy in the assumption that its only a game so its OK. How hypocritical to tell people this beaviour is terrible and then buy them a game or DVD where they can enjoy it to their hearts content. Doesnt anybody see something wrong with this?
2) There are countless studies (do a search) that show that repetitive viewing of graphic violence desensitises the viewer and so increases the feeling that violence is common and therefore more acceptable behaviour. This does not mean every kid is going to become a psychopath but it does mean that violence will seem more acceptable in a lot of cases.
3) There are no clear studies on the effect of viewing material and its affect on behaviour? Totally untrue. Bhutan was a peaceful tranquil country that didnt even allow foreigners on its soil until about 1950's; it was the basis for the notional land of Shangri-la. In 1998 the country decided to allow sat TV into the country. The former peaceful citizens now had access to the trash TV we all get. Guess what happened? Crime soared immediately after Satellite TV was allowed. You will not get a better study than that. Read the article at this link
"http://www.guardian.co.uk/theguardian/2003/jun/14/weekend7.weekend2"
People are in denial about this subject and a lot of powerful organisations make billions of dollars from selling violent stuff.
4) Even if you ignore the evidence available now it is clear that there is a reasonable concern; since violent media is not a critical part of life it should be removed until SHOWN it is safe. Would you like to take medication where there were reasonable concerns about its safety? No you would want it shown to be safe before taking it. Remember smoking? That was thought safe once, without proper study.
How will you feel if it is clearly shown to your satisfaction that violent media does adversely affect significant numbers of people? Will you look back and say "What have I done!"

[Donna]

The games I played as a child were infinitely different to the ones of today. We must remember that today's hardcore violent games are a world apart to those of even a few years ago. Manhunt isn't Pacman!

Even as a broad minded adult gamer, who loves action movies and horror, there are certain games I find repulsive and yet have seen adults purchase for their child. I wonder if they'd let them see the equivalent horror movie at the cinema.

Many parents are not playing these games first, or watching their kids play, so by saying "it's just a computer game" their youngsters get to access content that they'd certainly not get to see on TV, and wouldn't be allowed to view in the cinema. Sitting, potentially unsupervised for hours of the day.

We need to ask ourselves whether we want to risk allowing children to play these games and hope they turn out ok, or take sensible steps to protect impressionable youngsters from a potentially negative influence that "violence is ok".

Children, like adults, can become desensitised to violence if they see it regularly. If the are rewarded for acting violently, repeatedly, I wouldn't want to say with any certainty "they'll grow up ok".

Given 10 years or so, I think scientific trials will be able to include the youngsters I've seen handed a copy of Grand Theft Auto and the like.

In the meantime, I'd suggest responsible parents at least take the advice offered by game shop staff and look at websites for these games before buying for a child. At the very least, keep the computer in a room where you can look on and see what is happening on that screen.

[ian]

There's good research into childrens USE of fantasy material in various forms: "Uses of Enchantment" deals with literature, while "Killing Monsters" considers TV, and to a lesser extent video games.

In both cases they consder, and explore how children use games to explore and understand things they're uncomfortable or uncertain about. Fantasy and Play provides a safe place to learn about things that can't take place in the real world. In play they can tame and control things they find frightening, and confusing. Kids know this - we just forget this when we grow up and start worrying unnecessarily.

[Poppyflds]

Claiming violent video games leads to acts of violence, is the same argument used in the 50's to try to outlaw pop music because it, supposedly, led to lewd behaviour amongst its listeners.
The arguments were rubbish then, and are rubbish now.

[Anthony]

uh yeah right there is so much violence in the world today lets just blam the video games so that we don't look like we are bad parents. god people wake up. im sick of this crap. there is an ESRB for a reason. the ignorance of the world.

cheese