Paradox of Violent Video Games - Research Paper Example

Paradox of Violent Video Games Introduction It is 2003 when a Dutch prosecutor was reading the trial of a 24-year-old Tristan Van Der. Tristan was facing multiple charges on first-degree murder and causing injuries to a dozen other people (Hillis web). According to BBC sources, Tristan went on a shooting rampage at Alphen a Dutch town, opened fire using an automatic weapon and short five people dead before shooting himself. Cases of shooting spree are becoming common in most developed countries particularity the US and Europe. The latest incident been in Oslo where a gunman named Anders Behring opened fire killing at least 77 people and causing severe injuries to dozens others. The incident at Colorado phoenix theatre is still a fresh news item in which, a gunman turned the new Batman movie into areal horror. In this particular incident, 12 people died on the spot with 58 other surviving with serious injuries. The three incidents indicate how people are willing and ready to turn fiction into reality. Although such incidents have a political or social motivation, violent video games plays a significant role in motivating such killers. For instance, Tristan had been playing Call on duty: Modern warfare 2 before he went on a shooting spree. However, these are isolated cases of violence resulting or inspired by violent video games. It is a paradox that violent video games inspire people into becoming saviours (Ferguson 786). This essay will therefore analyze the paradox of violent video games in relation to violence and mass murder. There have been intensive studies on the effects of video games in promoting acts of violence among teenagers. Studies in this field have attracted various people particularly sociologists and psychologists attempting to find links between the video games and acts of violence particularly among teenagers. Concentration on teenagers is necessitated by the fact that teenagers are the main consumers of violent video games and, therefore, researchers are interested in analysing the correlation between playing violent video games and engaging in real violence. Studies completed in 2002 at the concluded that violent video games did not motivate people to indulge in real acts of violence (Kutner 243). Most studies in the discipline focus on the role of violent video games in shaping individual’s attitude towards acts of violence. It is a contradiction that violent video games addicts do not commit real violence. In fact, all the recent cases of shooting rampage have a political or social motivation Flew (Terry and Humphreys 211). Police are currently investigating the Colorado incident to unearth the motives behind the killings. However, other cases such as the Oslo shootings had a political motivation. For instance, Breivick complained that Norway was increasingly becoming a multicultural and Islamic state. The gunman claimed the authorities were to blame for the acts. These incidents disassociate violence particularly mass murder with violent video games. The paradox of video games in relation to acts of violence depicts rivalry that exists between media and producers of video games. Media and video games are complementary pastime activities and hence they have conflict of interest. According to Shaw, the video game industry has become a soft target to the media and entertainment industry, which consider it as a rival (121). From the author’s argument, association of video games and real violence is a tool applied by media houses to win the entertainment market. This is an expected phenomenon considering that both industries target the same audience. Recent meta-analysis conducted on 130, 000 subjects concluded that violent video games induced short-term aggression and antisocial behaviour. Although the studies have a significant value of truth, they are subject to criticism and misinterpretation. For instance, the tests did not consider the sanity or the mental health of the subjects (Davis 123). In addition, the tests did not consider exposure to other triggers such as physical aggression, emotions, or media. It is evident that primary triggers such anger contributes more to acts of violence than violent video games. Exposure to real violence and direct triggers such as anger are the main contributors of violence among the youth (Eastin 435). It has also been established that violence results from a combination of factors and not from an isolated trigger such as violent video games. Video Games vs. TV Programs and Movies Associations of violent video games with acts of violence particularly among the youths have been a subject of interest among psychologists. Studies published in 1978 in the Journal of Adolescent Health, concluded that there was no any direct links between violent video games and acts of violence among the youths. These studies were based on the finding of Harvard scholars who had been working on the video game titled the Death Race. There had been speculations that the video game promoted bullying in schools. However, the studies concluded that violent video games were less likely to promote bullying among teenage boys (Freedman 132). Criticism associating the video game with bullying among teenage boys failed to produce conclusive results linking the two behaviours. These results are similar to results conducted to determine links between lung cancer and cigarette smoking. Lack of conclusive results linking violent video games with aggressions is the main source of controversy between the subjects. This is because violent video addicts turning into violent individuals in the real world is widely accepted norm. However, the two illustrations depict video games as a mild trigger of aggression. In addition, cases of violence linked with violent video games have a secondary trigger or motivation factor. For instance, studies on bullying among teenage boys concluded that the needs for recognition among teenage boys were the main cause of bullying. If video game promoted violence, then the media particularly violent movies and TV programs should also be banned since the also promote violence. Thus, video games are not a major risk factor or contributor of aggressive behaviour among children. Although both children and have equal frequency in playing video games, children are always at a greater risk of developing aggressive behaviour than adults (Ferguson 175). Video game addiction is a major problem among children and hence the concern. In addition, research has proved that video game addiction is more common among boys than it is among girls of equal age. It is evident that children tend to believe in actions of senior people in the society. This is the main difference between the role of violent video games and violent TV programs or movies. For instance, movies and TV programs use real characters while most video games use animated characters. It is obvious that real characters are more influential than animated characters that are applied in video games. In addition, violent TV programs and movies are more influential than video games. Children also tend to copy behaviours of adults and therefore they are more likely to follow or adopt behaviours of violent adults as depicted in violent movies and TV programs. The role of the audience also varies across video games, violent movies, and TV programs. Movie viewers are receptive audience while video game players are interactive audience. This is the main difference between video game and movie or TV program audience. Been a receptive audience is more vulnerable than been an interactive audience. For instance, viewers of a violent movie have no ability to control its content while video game audience can control their viewing or the content of their game. Ability to control a video game makes people to become addicted to the game and not the actual violence. On the other hand, violent movies and TV programs make the audience prefer real violence. Research studies have established that audience of violent movies are 3 times less likely to engage in real violence than movies and TV programs audience. The role of violent TV programs and movies in relation to aggression and antisocial behaviour among children disapproves video games as contributor of violence among children. This correlates with research studies conducted to establish the role of violent video game in aggression and antisocial behaviour among teenagers. The main difference between violent video games and violent movies is that video games promote heroism while movies develop aggression among the audience. This also stands out as a sticking paradox of video games. Most video games have lead character or characters that are controlled by the player. The player, subject to the lead character or characters, controls other characters in the game. The role of the player is to ensure that a lead character dominates other character by defeating them in confrontations. In addition, lead characters always have a mission or a significant role that they are expected to fulfil. Most lead characters engage in superhero acts where they are expected to save other characters from difficult situation. Video games such as Mortal Kombat promote act of sympathy and kindness. This indicates that violent video games inspire people into becoming real super heroes and does not encourage acts of aggression among individuals. Research studies carried out at The University of Queensland on the dangers of violent video games concluded that violence is a paradox of the video games. The research required the audience to rate the Impacts of a video game on a scale of 1-10 in relation to their contribution to real world violence. The studies concluded that violent video audiences have a significant chance of becoming compassionate individuals. Violence is an overall affect of violent video games which results from cumulative impacts of been involved in a violent video game. However, it is unclear whether the behavior has a long-term impact on video game addicts. Although violent video games have a mild effect on the audience, it is uncertain whether the impact is long-term. The role of video games in promoting real violence is a controversial topic and hence the main paradox of violent video games. Violent video games and real violence are contradicting although closely related topics. Video games are a major pastime activity that keeps the audience engaged. It is evident that most video games addicts are violent and, hence such games keep them engaged or prevent them from engaging in real violence. Research studies conducted at Massachusetts general hospital proved that people used video games as a venting tool. It was also established that most people who engaged in violent video gamers used them as a platform to express anger or frustrations sustained in the real world. This contradicts the impacts of violent movies or TV programs on individuals. While video game addicts use gamming as a platform to expressing anger and dissatisfaction, movie addicts consider violent movies as a source of new tactics. This contradicts the roles of violent movies in real world violent. Conclusive studies conducted at a Californian institute of criminology concluded that violent video games prevented people from engaging in acts of violence by 50%. This indicates that people who engage in video games are 50% less likely to engage in violence than people who do not engage in video games. These results have a similar implication on the role of violent video games. In fact, these results are more inclined to violent video games than they are on ordinary video games. The level of violence in a video game determines the audience or the impact that a video game has on the audience. Violent video games seem to attract violent minded people or people who have ill motives. On the other hand, less violet video games lack specific audience. This preference indicates that video games have different impacts on the audience. Association of violent video games with violent people indicates that creators of the video games and the authority have a role to influence people’s decision by creating video games with positive impact (Anderson 78). Violence resulting from accrued effect of video games should be blamed on the government or relevant authorities. In addition, video game producers also have a role to play pin influencing people’s decision. Video Game and Self-Esteem Association of violent video games with violence results from lack of consideration on the positive side of the games. People only consider the negative aspect of video games making them fail to acknowledge the positive impact of video game. Aggression and antisocial behavior resulting from violent video games is a negative impact of the video games. However, this does not prevent them from having a positive impact on the audience. Numerous researches on the impacts of violent video games have concluded that the games contribute to high levels of self-esteem among players. Although this impact has an indirect result on video games players, it has long-term benefits on the players. High levels of self-esteem resulting from playing of video games contradict their role in violence and criminal activities. According to Docker (132), most repeat offenders particularly those that engage in violence have a self-esteem issue. This indicates that video games reduce case of planned violence and assaults. For example, violent children engage in acts of violence as a way of attracting attention from other students. In addition, it has been established that violent children or adults suffer from esteem problems. The problem can be controlled by keeping the student engaged in activities that contribute to their self-esteem. The role of video games in building self-esteem contradicts implications of violent video games as a source of violence among schoolchildren. Violent video games do not motivate violence among people. Moreover, association of violent video games with criminality does not have sufficient logical support. In fact, violent video games prevent people from engaging in violence or aggression. People have different personalities that require them to engage in different activities in order to achieve satisfaction. For instance, music listeners achieve satisfaction from listening to music while sports men achieve satisfaction from sports. On the other hand, violent people achieve their satisfaction by inflicting pain and suffering on other people through acts of violence. Although violence is an antisocial behavior, it is a fact that violent people are part of our society. Therefore, violent members of the society have a right to live a fulfilling life and achieve the desired levels of satisfaction. The recent cases of mass murder indicate the weakness that our societies have in dealing with violent people. Cases of mass murder indicate that the modern society does not recognize violent personalities in their midst (Docker 132). Thus, violent video games act as a solution to the problem since they create a platform where people with violent personality can use to achieve self-satisfaction. Engaging in a violent video game provide violent individuals with a chance of achieving self-satisfaction similar to satisfaction achieved from real violence. This prevents such people from engaging in violence or acts that would jeopardize other people’s lives. Counterarguments against the role of violent video games in enhancing satisfaction among violent people are based on the likelihood of turning into acts of violence when not engaged in a game. This argument is not valid since violent people do not have continuous violent desires for violence. Studies conducted on multiplayer video games have proved that such games are 25% more effective in preventing violence among people than other games that require a single player. Multiplayer video games act as a form of competition among the players and hence reduce cases of real competition that would turn out into actual confrontation. Research studies carried out at the University of Massachusetts concluded that teenage boys who played video games such as The Grand Theft were less likely to turn into physical confrontation than boys who played football or other sports. Although violent video games give their participant a chance to practice acts of violence, most of the video game violence is purposeful. The purpose behind violence in video games is the main factor that distinguishes video games and violent movies. Violence in most video games is intended to either instill order in a society or prevent crime. On the other hand, real violence causes harm or suffering on people. This indicates that players of video games practice purposeful violence. This is analogous to the training given to security officials. For instance, soldiers do not assault people on the streets because of their military training and exposure to violence. Similarly, addicts of violent movies are less likely to engage in violence because of exposure to acts of violence and crime. This contradicts counter arguments that are constructed on the impacts of violent video games as a source of exposure to violence. Mental health of individuals determines their susceptibility to violence than other secondary triggers such as video games. Recent cases of mass murder have been associated with insanity. In fact, most culprits have to undertake sanity tests before been convicted. This indicates that insanity a primary trigger of aggression and violence. Video games are known to have positive impacts on individual’s mental health (Anderson 78). Video game games enable people to develop hand-eye coordination and visual-motor skills. In addition, video games enhance concentration and resistance to distractions. These factors enhance mental health of individual and, hence prevent them from engaging in violence resulting from mental health. Conclusion Violent video games are often associated with violence among participants and addicts. However, it is a contradiction that violent video game players do not practice violence in the real world. Lack of violence among video game players is the source of violent video game paradox. Violent video games provide violent individuals with a platform through which they can express their frustrations and dissatisfaction. This prevents them from engaging in real violence. On the other hand, video games keep violent people engaged and hence prevent them from engaging in violence. Violence is an indication of low self-esteem and frustration. Violent video games present individuals with an opportunity to build their self-esteem. This prevents them from engaging in violent acts such as mass murder and shooting sprees. Finally, violent video games improve individual’s mental health and hence prevent them from engaging in violence. Works Cited Anderson, Bushman. “Effects of violent video games on aggressive behavior, aggressive cognition, aggressive affect, physiological arousal, and prosocial behavior: A meta-analytic review of the scientific literature”. Psychological Science 12.1 (2005): 53-359. Print. Davis, Natalie. Society and Culture in Early Modern France. Stanford, California: Stanford University Press, 2006. Print. Docker, John. Postmodernism and Popular Culture: A Cultural History. Melbourne, Australia: Cambridge University Press, 2006. Print. Eastin, Mathew. "The Influences of Competitive and Cooperative Group Game Play on State Hostility". Human Communication Research 33 (2007): 450-466. Ferguson. Kilburn. "The Public health risks of media violence: A meta-analytic review." Journal of Pediatrics, 154 (2009): 759-763. Print. Ferguson, Christopher. "Much Ado About Nothing: The Misestimation and Overinterpretation of Violent Video Game Effects in Eastern and Western Nations: Comment on Anderson et al. (2010)". Psychological Bulletin 136.2 (2010): 174–178. Print. Flew, Terry and Humphreys, Sal. Games: Technology, Industry, Culture. London: Oxford University Press, 2005. Print. Freedman, Jonathan. Media violence and its effect on aggression: assessing the scientific evidence. Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 2005. Print. Hillis, Scott "Video games don't create killers, new book says". Uk.reuters.com. 2008. Web 25, July 2012. Kutner, Lawrence. Grand Theft Childhood: The Surprising Truth about Violent Video Games. New York: Sage. 2008. Print. Shaw, James. A cognitive categorization model for the study of intercultural management. Academy of Management Review, 15.4 (2006) 626-645. Read More