Violent Video Games Make Us Violent....or Do They???

December 2019

Violent video games are making our kids act out violently.  They are causing school shootings, as kids who are obsessed with these games think it is okay to act that way in real life.  Bandura's Bobo Doll experiments and Social Learning Theory (https://www.simplypsychology.org/bobo-doll.html) would tell us this is so.  The problem is, the research surrounding violent video games just does not support this.  At all.  There is literally no conclusive evidence to support society's fears and claims that violent games make kids violent.  None.

Research on the subject is mixed.  In 2012, Saleem et al. determined that games with prosocial content lead children to exhibit helpful behaviors, and violent games led to hurtful behaviors.  This was done with test subjects in a lab setting, but this is not real life so it cannot be applied to children playing violent games as part of their daily lives.  A study done by Wiedeman et al. in 2015 cited that violent media *might* desensitize kids towards violence and a decreased likeliness to engage prosocial behavior, but results are inconclusive.   None of these studies have proven a long-term outcome consistent with their theories, partially because they are recent studies.  In 2016, Kovess-Masfety et al. actually found that higher video game usage led to greater academic achievement and intellectual functioning, fewer peer relationship problems and mental health difficulties.  They also found that high video game usage was NOT associated with suicidal thoughts or conduct disorders.  In 2011, Adachi and Willoughby, found that competition- NOT violence- led to aggression.  Whether a game was violent or not did not affect the aggression level of the players.  What did increase aggression was the level of competition in the game.  Every study I have read so far concluded with a caution: there are outside and possibly unknown factors that may have affected the results.  It is impossible to know everything about a test subject's background, as these things are self-reported.  I also found that in some studies, data was manipulated after the fact.  When you conduct research for your PhD, you have to declare your intentions, hypothesis, methods, etc. before you ever even begin.  This is not the case when you are an independent researcher.  You, as the researcher have the right to alter your study if you feel a change is warranted.  That makes it very hard to determine what really occurred in the study. 

The studies that make the news are the negative ones that align with our fears.  (More on this in another post.) So whenever you see a news story covering video games or screen time or violent media, take it with a grain of salt.  It might have some interesting points, but it is most likely not the whole picture.  News stories rarely show both sides of the story.

School shootings in the US seem to be rampant.  They're horrible and unfathomable and beyond tragic.  This is one of the reasons I got into my research in the first place.  It seemed that there HAD to be a correlation!  The trouble is, kids all over the world are playing the same violent games and we are the only country with a school shooting problem.  Read that again.  We cannot blame the games.

There is another factor at play here, or rather many other factors at play.

Let's take Sandy Hook as an example.  After that unthinkable tragedy, we were shocked and concerned for our children and for the future.  We were looking for meaning and for a cause, someone or something to blame for the 26 lives lost in such a senseless and violent manner.  Almost immediately, news outlets reported that Adam Lanza was an avid video game player.  As a society, we panicked.  Lawmakers panicked.  Teachers panicked.  Parents panicked, and all rightfully so.  The truth is that Adam Lanza WAS an avid gamer.  Anyone want to take a guess at his favorite game that he played for many hours a day?   Anyone?  ......Wait for it..... Dance Dance Revolution.  Yup, that was his favorite game.  There is literally no violence whatsoever in that game.  Nonetheless, our fears were not alleviated.  We were (and still are) understandably worried.

In his book Lost in a Good Game, Etchells brings up some very interesting points.  He suggests that "perhaps the link is reversed: people who are already aggressive are more likely to commit murder and more likely to play violent video games.Perhaps only a certain subsection of people are at risk of developing aggressive tendencies, and only after playing certain games in certain situations.  Perhaps the link doesn’t exist at all and other factors such as mental health or family environment are the most important ones driving behavior."  The bottom line is: we just don't know yet.  What we do know is that all of our mass shootings in the past two decades or so were NOT done by people who played violent video games.

The more I read, the more my own theory is destroyed.  There's one caveat, though: none of this research has been conducted on young children.  All of the studies I have read involved upper-elementary, pre-teens, teenagers, and adults.  None of them looked specifically (or at all) at 5-6 year olds.  So while it may be true for the majority of people playing video games, we are not sure if the violence in these games affects young children (under age 8).  I suspect one reason this population has not been studied is because these violent games are rated T or M, not for young children.  However, as a teacher, I can tell you that young children ARE playing these games anyway.  Parents are buying these games for their kids.  It only takes a few to allow their kids to play, then others follow suit because "if so-and-so let their kids play, then it must not be so bad."  Maybe it isn't.  I really don't know.  Existing research would tell you that it's probably fine, but that's what I'm hoping to find out.