How Do the Negative Effects Outweigh the Positive in the Effects that Violent Video Games Have on Children - Literature review Example

There is statistically significant evidence from the studies within the fields of psychology and sociology to indicate that violent video games have a negative impact on a child’s behavioral development as he or she matures into adulthood. These studies approach the issue from a variety of perspectives, some analyzing the effects of video game usage on academic achievement and others that focus on usage’s effects on violent tendencies. Regardless of how these effects of measured, evidence is accumulating in favor of the position that they are not good for childhood development. Short of recommending alternatives or ways of preventing the kind of excessive video game use targeted in these studies as adverse, what is conclusively known is the prevalence and results of violent video games. Nevertheless, there are valid objections and concerns about these conclusion that shall be addressed in turn; none of these counterarguments or critiques of the research literature hold much weight. The arguments from scientific findings can be supplemented with academic philosophy, specifically in the area of ethical philosophy where some argue a non-distinction in moral terms between killing an imaginary character and killing an actual person. From this broad base of studies and research into the effects of violent video games maturing children, it is conclusive that the negative effects of violent video game usage far outweigh any alleged positive effects. First, the scientific rigor put into discovering what video game usage does to academic performance is undeniable. Researcher Vivek Anand found a significant negative correlation between the amount of time a student spends on video games and that student’s GPA and SAT scores, two generally accepted measures of academic performance. With a p value of more than 95%, the link is significant and indicates video games may have a detrimental effect on adolescent academics. As Anand points out, using GPA is a more reliable instrument than SAT scores, which represent general knowledge. However, one may still object that GPAs are true measures of intelligence. While this is true, Anand is focused purely on academic performance, which, as that criticism makes clear, does not always match GPA. And while the connection is difficult due to the local circumstances and complexities of student life and individual personalities, the link is still clear. It is intuitive that more time spent playing video games means less time spent studying, preparing for exams and projects, and less time thinking about material taught in class. A missing element to Anand’s argument, however, is a central piece: indication of time-dependent effects of video game usage on decreased student success. The study itself focuses on a sample of individuals through a period of time during the academic school year, yet it does not acknowledge a general decrease in student success through time. As Anand points out in the introduction, “Early versions of video games have evolved from simple one- or two-person games into massive, multiplayer online gaming, which simultaneously connects individuals to thousands of others” (Anand 552). Given this increasingly complexity of the gaming environment, it might seem as though gaming is taking on an increasing role in the student-adolescent’s life. As such, it might seem student performance, in a wide sample, has been decreasing through an extended period of time, namely from the initial development of video games through today. A brief review of the literature does not yield any reliable statistics on that point; however, studies on the effects of violent video games are overwhelming. Even though video games are designed to be entertaining and challenging, as the early video games such as Pong and Pac Man were, recent analyses show that as much as 89% of video game content being produced contains some violent content, and that approximately half of this content is violence directed at human beings within the gaming environment (Gentile, Lynch and Linder 6). Although these statistics on prevalence are shocking to some, it is relatively meaningless what the content of a game is (from a developmental point of view), unless there is some indication that the prevalence of violence in video games is correlated with increasing violence among those who use the games frequently. Due to not only the prevalence of violence in video games today but also the prevalence of use of these games, extensive research has been funded to investigate effects. Because of the extensiveness of the research literature, it makes sense only to look at meta-analyses of these studies, one of which found that in 54 neutral studies of video game violence and aggression, with a total of 4,262 research subjects, there is a statistically significant link between playing violent video games and “aggressive behaviors, aggressive cognitions, aggressive emotions, increased physiological arousal, and decreased pro-social behaviors” (Anderson and Bushman 354). Needless to say, it is difficult to argue with a statistical correlation established by an extensive meta-analysis, but Gentile et al. offer a brief overview of potential moderators in the relationship. Moderators are facts that may make the correlation impure in terms of differential psychology. Trait hostility, according to the authors, is one potential moderator of violent video games. Like with all dangerous and aggressive activities, violent video games may actually attract children who already show more aggressive tendencies. Those youths who are characteristically aggressive may seek out video games as a means of living out their personal, internal drives to be violent toward other people, actually reducing the risk of aggressive behaviors toward others in reality. Gentile et al. also suggest parent monitoring may be a moderator in the equation (9). That is, parental-imposed limits have been shown to be effective in reducing television time for those who play video games “excessively”. In response to these claims of moderating factors, one can easily claim that (a) these moderators have yet to be proven conclusively, and (b) it does not refute a possible model of mutual causation: children prone to aggression already being caused to seek out video game violence, and based on that violence being caused to see out real aggression against others in a real world environment. Additionally, studies on the statistical effect of hypothesized moderators needs to take into effect constantly changing factors such as the continuous evolution of video games (Gentile, Lynch and Linder 10). Anderson and Dill (2000) established the so-called “General Aggression Model” (GAM) in response to growing links between violent video games and aggressive attitudes and behaviors. The model itself describes a process through which aggressive personalities and gaming-rich environments interact to create aggressive behaviors by means of automatic and controlled decision processes (Anderson and Dill 773). This model not only seems to be useful in contextualizing the results of meta-analyses like the one Anderson et al. conducted in 2010, but also in providing a theoretical model in psychological research. Drawing the distinction between short- and long-term effects of violence in video games is important, according to the GAM, because “short-term violent video game increases in aggression are expected whenever exposure to violent media primes aggressive thoughts, increasing hostile feeling or increases arousal (Anderson and Dill 774). What this indicates is that trait hostility can be a significant moderator over short periods of time. Over the long-term, on the other hand, violence increases learned content. Such knowledge structures actually create, in individuals with heavy exposure to violence, trait hostility: the personality factor that supposedly draws already aggressive individuals to violent video games. These games make individuals more vigilant for enemies, less trusting, and ultimately more aggressive (Gentile, Lynch and Linder 12). According to the Gentile et al. study, the GAM-based hypothesis that exposure to violence in video games would be positively correlated with trait hostility and aggressive behaviors through the short- and long-term were generally confirmed (22). Anderson et al. expanded on their earlier work in a recent meta-analysis from 2010 dealing with the effects of violence in video games on particular emotional capacities in both Eastern and Western cultural contexts. This meta-analysis has the advantage of conducting cross-cultural comparisons, widening the focus of previous studies done specifically on violence in Western countries where technology is perceived to be more prevalent. But with increasingly integrated technologies around the world, culturally-mindful analyses are necessary (Anderson, Shibuya and Ihori 151). Despite changes made to statistic controls, moderator analyses, and sensitivity analyses from previous meta-analyses of strictly Western adolescents, the meta-analyses yielded equivalent results. The authors of the review write: “The evidence strongly suggests that exposure to violent video games is a causal risk factor for increased aggressive behavior, aggressive cognition, and aggressive affect and for decreased empathy and pro-social behavior” (Anderson, Shibuya and Ihori 162). What this demonstrates is a lack of cultural specificity to the threat of video game violence. It is, in other words, a problem that affects all human beings regardless of the environment in which they are raised and develop. Also important is how this analysis upholds the GAM model, which leaves room for short-term moderation by trait hostility but emphasizes the long-term role of violence in creating aggressive behaviors. As the authors state, “The effect of culture (Eastern vs. Western) was not significant in any of the research designs”, which yields two possibilities: (a) trait hostility/violence interaction according to the GAM is common in all human beings, and (b) trait hostility is common to males and females (Anderson, Shibuya and Ihori 162). In a comment on this Anderson et al. (2010) meta-analysis, L. Rowell Huesmann comments that despite the review’s methodological soundness and comprehensiveness, it will likely fail to change critics’ minds about the implications of the research. He ascribes this to philosophical arguments about the “freedom of expression”, a social value held in the US. Because “many people have their identities or self-interests closely tied to violent video games”, people are likely to reject sound statistical analysis in favor of ethics and social value-judgments (Huesmann 179-81). In terms of communication dynamics, there remains an open question of moral feelings to be discussed. In what communication scientists Hartmann and Vorderer (2009) call “moral disengagement”, users of violent video games experience “enjoyment rather than moral distress and distaste” in response to the killing of a virtual human being (865). The authors of this study looked at four cues: justification of violence, neglect/distortion of consequences, dehumanization of opponents, and condemnable action of opponents. Using these cues as theoretical reference points, the researchers found that cues implemented in modern video games effectively help players disengage from moral concerns (Hartmann and Vorderer 883). The results of empirical research in psychology and communication studies quickly surveyed above indicate a common solution: the efficacy of the GAM framework in describing how the negative effects of violent video games socially outweigh any alleged positive effects. What violent video games ultimately succeed in accomplishing is a greater tendency toward mistrust and outward violence toward others in the real world, based on the increasingly real experiences encountered in the virtual world. The effects of this phenomenon transcend culture in such a way that they immediately become a problem when a society becomes technologically advanced enough to facilitate virtual murder and carnage. Interestingly, this issue presents a case of a moral or political argument supported by scientific research that clear and unequivocally indicates an existing, or at least inevitable, social problem. But the rhetorical appeal of L. Rowell Huesmann’s pessimism, as expressed in his comment on Anderson et al.’s conclusive review, is appealing, especially since no one really knows how the moral and political debate will end. Works Cited Anand, Vivek. "A Study of Time Management: The Correlation between Video Game Usage and Academic Performance Markers." CyberPsychology & Behavior 10(4) (2007): 552-559. Anderson, C. A. and B. J. Bushman. "Effects of violent games on aggressive behavior, aggressive cognition, aggressive affect, physiological arousal, and prosocial behavior: A meta-analytic review of the scientific literature." Psychological Science 12 (2001): 353-359. Anderson, C. A. and K. E. Dill. "Video games and aggressive thoughts, feelings, and behavior in the laboratory and life." Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 78 (2000): 772-790. Anderson, C. A., et al. "Violent video game effects on aggression, empathy, and prosocial behavior in Eastern and Western countries." Psychological Bulletin 136 (2010): 151-173. Gentile, Douglas A., et al. "The effects of violent video game habits on adolescent hostility, aggressive behaviors, and school performance." Journal of Adolescence 27(1) (2004): 5-22. Hartmann, T. and P. Vorderer. "It’s Okay to Shoot a Character: Moral Disengagement in Violent Video Games." Journal of Communication 59 (2009): 865-890. Huesmann, L. R. "Nailing the coffin shut on doubts that violent video games stimulate aggression: Comment on Anderson et al." Psychological Bulletin 136(2) (2010): 179-181. Read More