5. Why do you think some members of the scientific community conclude that violent video games are harmful, but other scientists say they are not? What does this tell you about field theory that was developed in Chapter 1?

On April 20, 1999, two students, Eric Harris and Dylan Klebold, killed twelve students and a teacher. Twenty-three others were wounded before Harris and Klebold killed themselves at Columbine High School in Colorado. With no apparent triggering event or cause behind the massacre, investigators looked for some motivation to explain the assailants’ behavior. Some blamed the parents; others blamed the school and cliques of students. Michael Moore’s documentary film Bowling for Columbine linked the tragedy to a culture of violence in the United States. Other observers noted the teens’ obsession with the violent video game Doom and argued that it and others of its genre, such as Mortal Kombat and Wofenstein 3D, lead to violent outbursts among some individuals and might have served as one cause of the Columbine massacre.2 There has been an ongoing controversy over violent media almost since the beginning of television. Studies have examined media violence in efforts to demonstrate conclusively that exposure to certain types of stimuli can have harmful and even tragic effects. Although media violence has been studied for years, as of yet there remains division in the scientific field regarding the exact relationship between exposure to violent images and violent outcomes.3 Looking for clear answers and in response to growing public pressure to regulate or ban violent media content, the U.S. Senate passed a bill in 2006 requiring the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) to investigate how electronic media affect children Yet, there remains a great deal of controversy over what the research demonstrates. Are violent games the cause of violent behavior? Or, do violent people act out through violent media? Are these games simply a symptom of potential problems? Does a ban or increased regulation increase safety and diminish violent behavior? Consider the discussion between two students, Spencer and JP, and analyze how their argument develops—especially the connections each makes that link claims to evidence.
Spencer: It’s time to ban violent video games. I’ve read about this all year, and it seems to me that there is a very clear link between violent games and violent behaviors. Last week, I read an article by Amanda Schaffer that surveyed existing research, and she is pretty clear about three conclusions it reaches. First, the more children are immersed in violent video games, the more likely they will get into fights and act aggressively. Second, there is longitudinal evidence that shows that, over time, the more children play violent video games the more they become physically and verbally aggressive. And, third, the bulk of experimental studies reach the same conclusions.
7 There are hundreds of studies that support these conclusions, but even if the studies are not absolutely definitive, the preponderance of evidence is clear.
One of the best articles I read was by psychologist Craig Anderson, who reviewed the myths and facts in the scientific literature.8 He shows there are problems with letting children play violent games. Violent video games teach violence, and they teach violence as a way to solve problems. When people are placed in violent roleplaying games, they learn and practice how to find aggressive solutions to conflict.
We need to ban these games; there is no good reason for them to be sold.
JP: Wait a minute. The research isn’t as clear as you might think. Even if you just go online and search using Google or Bing, you find thousands of entries showing all kinds of explanations and conclusions, many of which don’t agree. I’ve read the material that says there is a link between violent media and violent behaviors, but I have also read many studies that show there is no causal relationship. For instance, take a look at a really interesting article by Dmitri Williams and Marko Skoric published in Communication Monographs.9 They concluded that there is no conclusive support showing that violent video games contribute significantly to increased violent behavior in the “real world.” And, some people such as Dr. Cheryl Olson have noted in interviews that experimental data are mostly from studies of college students with study designs that assumed a link between violent games and violent behavior.10 It is not surprising, because of the way the study was set up, to find an association between violent games and violent behavior. My only point is that the data are not clear. You and I have played violent video games, we might get frustrated and angry if we lose, but we don’t act out beyond the game. Increased aggression inside the game does not necessarily translate to violence outside. I think it is more likely that violent people like violence and choose entertainment that supports their predisposition. Because they are already violent, they watch violent TV shows and movies and they play violent games. In fact, violent video games may actually be beneficial for these people. A recent study by Unsworth, Devilly, and Ward makes the point that perhaps violent video games actually play a cathartic role—which could be a positive outlet for otherwise violent behaviors Spencer: Even if what you are saying is true, violent video games still pose a significant risk because some people may act out on the basis of a game. Several authors have made the point that the interactive nature of video games blurs the lines that separate reality from fantasy, meaning that people who have a violent predisposition may be more likely to act out aggressive fantasies. It seems to me that these games—
whether they are the cause of violence or make violence more acceptable—should not be allowed if there is any level of risk associated with them.12 And, there is a risk that players who are already disturbed may become even further agitated by these games and that they will act out the fantasies.
JP: The evidence is not sufficiently clear to support what you are saying. But even if it were, you cannot ask government to restrict every possible risk. There is no clear, causal connection that shows playing violent games results in aggressive behavior.
Government restrictions on the possible risk undermine our rights to free expression, allow government censorship, and place someone in charge of what we do for entertainment. This is a very dangerous path that we should not follow.