The Debate Behind Video Game Violence

The Debate Behind Video Game Violence

Today, 65% of American adults and
nearly all teenagers play video games. Games look evermore real. They can, and do,
show incredibly detailed violence. And since their beginnings, video games
have come with an implicit assumption that they’re probably doing
something bad to us. 77% of parents believe media
violence, including video games, is contributing to America’s
culture of violence. But what do we actually know
about how violent games affect us? Psychologists have been studying
this for decades. But right now, the research community
includes a small but vocal subsection convinced that the
perceived scientific consensus linking violent games to aggression
is completely wrong. Alongside moral panics and conflicting
research, huge amounts of money have been made selling video
games, violent or otherwise. In 1976, the industry was
already making $25 billion annually. In 2018 it made
more than $136 billion. So the stakes are high. Depending on what scientists find, there’s a
whole lot to be gained, or lost. Brad Bushman and Christopher Ferguson
are perhaps the best known researchers representing each side
of this dispute. They are both psychologists who have
spent years researching video games and violence. They use similar
methods and do similar experiments. But they’ve wound up on either side of
a line drawn clearly in the sand. So why do these researchers disagree so
strongly, and how did we get here? So you can’t look at
at anybody without pointing your gun at them. Right. In 1976, video game company Exidy
released a game called Death Race. To play it, you put your
hands on an actual steering wheel. Your foot’s on a pedal. You drive around a car and
murder anything in your way. You hear the screams of your
victims and their gravestones litter the screen. Soon after its release, there
were calls to ban it. There was outrage and many were worried
about what it was doing to their kids. OK, so death race did come out
in 1976, that’s four years before Pac-Man. Its graphics are primitive and barely
recognizable, but the game resulted in what was perhaps the first
widespread panic about violence in video games. And while that may seem
laughable now, those concerns didn’t go anywhere. Do violent video games
make for violent kids? Officials say they are responding to
complaints from parents that children have skipped school or stolen money to
play the games and made a nuisance of themselves. Outrage exploded again in
1992 with the release of games like Mortal Kombat and Night Trap. Mortal Kombat! Parents are often the first to
ask, could this, lead to this? Mortal Kombat featured especially violent
deaths and Night Trap showed sexual violence against women. Cold blooded murder is making Mortal Kombat
the most popular video game in history. Kids relish their victory
and their bloody choice . Should they pull out their opponents heart
or simply rip his head off just to see a spinal cord dangle
at a pool of blood? Parents were terrified. Schools panicked. Congress got involved. There was no rating on this game
at all when the game was introduced. Small children bought this at Toys “R” Us
and he knows that as well as I do. In 1994, the Interactive Digital
Software Association, now called the Entertainment Software Association, founded
the Entertainment Software Rating Board, or ESRB. The ESRB introduced a rating system similar
to the one that had been used to rate movies for decades. Last March, we promised you our
industry would develop a rating system that would put the controls back in
the hands of consumers, and especially parents. The system we present to
you today redeems on that pledge. While there are absolutely popular
nonviolent games, undeniably violent games like Call of Duty, Counter-Strike,
PUBG and Fortnight continue to be hugely successful. Epic Games alone, the
publishers of Fortnight, made a reported $3 billion in 2018. Huge games like Fortnight or Call of
Duty or World of Warcraft are created by organizational behemoths with massive
budgets and scores of employees. According to John Staats, the first
level designer ever for World of Warcraft, there’s just too much at
stake to be willingly creating something that might be dangerous. If you’ve worked in the gaming industry,
you’re also hyper aware of the responsibility that you have because I
mean, it’s a class action lawsuit. It’s a big thing. Games are as hard,
they’re hard enough to make as it is. You’re talking hundred
million dollar budgets. They don’t risk anything. So if there was really any
danger, they’re not dummies, they would definitely be avoiding
any potential damage. Because they have shareholders. They answer to their shareholders. I mean, it’s not just
a bunch of nerds. You actually have to have the money
guys who are actually really calling the shots. And they’re
no dummies either. I don’t see any game companies really taking
the time to think about it or care about it unless it comes
close to affecting their bottom lines. But politicians, concerned parents and the
media are thinking about it, and that alone can
have real-world consequences. Walmart is announcing it is
temporarily removing advertising displays for violent video games following
the recent mass shootings. Recently, when President Trump implicated
violent video games in mass shootings, shares of major video
game companies fell sharply. We must stop the glorification
of violence in our society. This includes the gruesome and grisly
video games that are now commonplace. So the question is,
are violent games actually doing something bad to us? The internet is full of both people
with a vested interest in violent games and conflicting
narratives about them. There is zero connection between
entertainment and behavior, and that’s been studied over and over and over
again and even ruled upon by the Supreme Court. This was a, maybe a
video game to this evil demon. He wanted to be a super soldier
for his Call of Duty game. What is causing trouble among
America’s youth in schools? Oh, it has to be a video game. Anyone of thought should find that
insulting at the face of it. Video games give you the skill
and the will to kill. It is the moral equivalent to putting
a military weapon in the hand of every child in America. And it turns out that the
conversation happening publicly often has very little in common with what
interested psychologists are actually researching. It’s a
reasonable question, right? You see people, and particularly at
risk groups like children, playing these violent games. And it’s pretty
reasonable to ask like, well, does that cause them to behave
more violently in real life? Psychologists have been trying to get to
the bottom of this for decades, and it’s important to first understand
how they go about seeking answers to questions like this
in the first place. You can’t measure violent criminal
behavior in a laboratory experiment. For example, we can’t give our participants
guns and knives and see what they’ll do with them after
they play a violent game. Because of that, when you see
headlines about video games and violence, the underlying research was
probably actually about aggression. There are a few fundamental types of
studies that can be done in these situations: experimental studies, cross-sectional
studies and longitudinal studies. An experimental study involves
a carefully constructed scenario in a controlled environment. You bring in participants, some of whom
are asked to play violent games. Afterwards, you measure their aggressive behavior,
which is defined as any behavior intended to harm another person
who doesn’t want to be harmed. If you’re studying kids, you might
just watch their behavior on the playground afterwards. If they’re adults, you use aggression
proxies, like how long you make someone hold their arm in ice or
how long you blast someone with awful headphone noise, or give
someone an electric shock. Then there are cross-sectional studies, which
just means you take some measurements at one point in time
and see if they’re correlated. So you could, for example, find
people whose favorite games are violent and see if those people are more
likely to have a history of aggression. Lastly, there are longitudinal studies,
which are just like cross-sectional studies, except you take
more than one measurement over time. These are the basic tools
researchers have at their disposal, not just for studying video games, but for
the majority of psychology as a whole. According to many researchers, the
evidence is clear: there is a connection between playing violent
video games and aggression. First, they can make
us more aggressive. Second, they can make us more numb
to the pain and suffering of others. And third, they can make us more
afraid of becoming victims of violence ourselves. One of Bushman’s most recent
studies looked at how playing violent games might affect what kids
do if they find a gun. They used an actual handgun
that had been disabled. We had them play
the video game Minecraft. We had a gun version where they
could kill monsters with a gun. We had a sword version where they could
kill monsters with a sword, or we had a nonviolent condition with
no weapons and no monsters. We found the largest effects for
the condition with the guns. Playing a violent game with swords
also made children engage in more dangerous behavior around guns. The kids who played the violent version
of the game were more likely to touch the gun, pull the trigger, and
point it at themselves and others. To a smaller but very vocal group
of researchers, the evidence points in an entirely different direction. People really wanted this to be true
and there really was this kind of like set group of scholars that sort
of invested their lives in this. We don’t generally find that
playing more action-oriented games is predictive of violence or
aggression later in life. It seems to be the knowledge of
the fictional nature of what people are engaged with seems to blunt to any
kind of learning experience from that. If there is a divergence between
different groups of studies, why would that be? And I think, you know, my
answer would be that unlike a lot of studies that existed before, I tried
to use standardized well, clinically validated measures for a
lot of my studies. And I started embracing preregistration, you
know, earlier than a lot of other people did. You know, and I’m
trying to do it without sounding like defensive. I don’t in any way mean to
say that my stuff like, you know, perfect or, you know, beyond
any kind of critique. It isn’t. You don’t win science by
consensus, actually, you know, even if there was a consensus. Nonetheless, scientific consensus is
a powerful tool. And for researchers, one way to
gauge the consensus on any particular topic is through meta-analyses, studies that
combine the results of many individual studies into
one larger analysis. In 2015, the American Psychological
Association released one such meta-analysis after forming a task force
of 10 experts chosen specifically for both their areas of expertise and
because they didn’t have a vested interest in video game research. It was an attempt at an objective
review of the most recent research on video games and violence
at that time. Mark Appelbaum, professor emeritus at UC
San Diego, chaired that task force. I’m fundamentally an
applied statistician, methodologist. I have been on a number of
APA task forces before, women’s mental health and abortion, a bunch of these. It’s not unusual for those of us
who are more on the methodological side to be asked. And I got a
call from someone at the American Psychological Association and they said, do you know
anything about what’s going on in video games? In the field, not the content. And I said, not much. And they said, good. The task force did its work,
and here’s what they concluded. Does playing these games where there is
this violent content, does it seem to have some impact? Yeah, it seemed pretty consistent, study
after study, that you did find things that happened in this
sort of behavioral aggression domain. And this is with regard to
aggression, not with regard to violence. And that’s the main
takeaway from the report. The APA task force says if we look
at all the way psychologists know how to measure aggression, playing violent video
games seems to be having an effect on people. But they did not
conclude that playing video games makes you violent or commit crime. And that lines up with what most
other researchers in the field are finding. I’ve been studying the effect of
violent video games for 10 years now. I can tell you that there is
a causal link between playing a violent video game and behavior. Simulated violence in video games
may influence a player’s thoughts, feelings and physical arousal,
affecting the individual’s interpretation of other behavior and then
increase our own aggressive behavior. In violent video games, there’s
definitely this triangulation where you get the same pattern of
results for laboratory experiments, cross-sectional studies and
longitudinal studies. The magnitude of the effect is
not especially small or especially large. It’s about the same size effect that
you get for most variables in social science studies. So exposure to violent video games, in
this case, is not the only risk factor for aggressive and violent behavior,
but it’s not a trivial risk factor either. The majority of published studies on the
effects of violent video games do show some kind of
effect on the player. Depending on the study, the
findings could be correlational, demonstrating a connection but not attributing cause,
or causal, suggesting that the game actually caused the effect. Christopher Ferguson and others take issue
and disagree with the APA, Bushman, and the psychology community’s
perceived consensus that there’s a link between violent
games and aggression. They cite conflicts of interest,
misguided research methods, and things like publication bias, the idea that
scientific journals are biased in which studies they decide to publish,
and the replication crisis, the idea that some established research is
unable to be later replicated. At this point, you really can look
at a number of other research groups and I’d say there’s maybe about, maybe
ten to a dozen of these preregistered studies and almost, maybe, only one
of them I can think of found evidence for any kind of, you
know, effects, and that one was a correlational effect. Video games are a little bit different
from more passive forms of media, such as watching television or watching
a movie or a video. They’re directly tied or linked
to the violent character. They directly reward
violent behavior. And we know that reward is a
very powerful motivator of human behavior. For years, people have tried to
argue that the interactivity of games makes them remarkably different from,
say, watching television or reading a book. But we don’t really have a
lot of evidence to suggest that games are super different from other forms of
media for the most part, in terms of having more of an impact on
people than television or books or other forms of media. Ferguson’s position is perhaps best summed
up by this excerpt from his 2017 book Moral Combat,
co-authored with Patrick Markey. Quote, “Within the world of video
game research, a David and Goliath battle is underway. The Goliaths are a well-organized,
politically connected, and well funded group of senior scholars who have
been linking violent video games to horrific acts of real-world brutality
for over thirty years. These anti–video game giants are being
challenged by a group of younger, progame researchers, many of whom grew
up surrounded by Atari, Nintendo, and PlayStation systems. Theirs is an epic struggle for truth
as they attempt to challenge the much more powerful anti–video
game empire.” But ultimately, the arguments happening
here are about statistics, research methods and personal motivations,
all of which don’t especially matter to many
people reading headlines. If two researchers publish a violent
video game study, one of those researchers finds that exposure to
violent media increases aggressive behavior, the other researcher finds that
exposure to violent media has no effect on aggressive behavior, the
mass media will definitely publicize the latter. It will get
a lot more media attention. It’s often suggested that since violent
crime, gun deaths and cases of bullying are decreasing, or that because
there’s much less violent crime in Japan or South Korea, where games
are also widespread, that it proves there’s no connection between
violence and video games. But violent crime could decrease while video
games are at the same time making people more aggressive. Aggression doesn’t necessarily mean violence,
and it doesn’t mean crime. But it’s true that
publication bias exists. It’s true that there is
a replication crisis in psychology. It’s true that in 2011, the
Supreme Court ruled that the research presented to them did not prove that
violent video games cause minors to act aggressively. For the Entertainment
Software Association, the lobbying group representing the video game industry,
that Supreme Court ruling says a lot. From our perspective, this issue
has been debated and resolved by the Supreme Court, which is why you
have seen very few attempts to regulate the sale of video
games since that decision. It’s a very powerful reminder that the
reason we have a First Amendment and free speech and that we
have the ability to express ourselves, particularly through video games, is because
we’re in a country that allows for the ability for people to
choose what they want to hear and what they want to say
and how they connect. From the beginning, video game companies
have been accused of doing terrible things to those who play
their games and those accusations often didn’t have much basis in fact. So it’s not surprising that game
companies and gamers themselves might be defensive and quick to reject researchers
who suggest a connection with aggression. The fact remains that there
is an abundance of research suggesting a link between violent
video games and aggression. But you can take
that seriously without panicking. Many things contribute to someone’s
tendency towards aggression, like watching sports, your socioeconomic
status, or your gender. There’s research suggesting kids who play
violent games may be affected negatively, but there is no
research suggesting playing violent video games will make someone
a school shooter. It is easier to look at a
mass shooting as many people have, many politicians have, and say, hey, the fault
for this is video games, violent video games. And so people have tended
to look at, kind of, the research and the facts and the games
themselves with that preconceived notion in mind. Similarly to how if you’re a
big video game fan, you’re probably looking at games and saying, oh, of
course these games cannot have any effect on my mental state or cannot
make me more aggressive or anything like that. I certainly think they’re
like ethical questions of like, is this game glamorizing the military? Is this game a fetishization of war
in a way that makes people feel uncomfortable? And those are the ethical
questions that I think people have to wrestle with a lot
in the video games world. At the same time, there’s research
suggesting playing games can be in other ways beneficial, and that
collaborative games might counteract some of the negative effects
of violence in games. It’s a nuanced,
ongoing scientific debate. So, don’t panic, video games are not
turning you or your kids into monsters. But they’re probably doing something.

100 thoughts on “The Debate Behind Video Game Violence”

  1. This test is basically a sterile room with copy of Minecraft and a handgun.

    Like of course people are going to pick up the handgun after a while.. wtf

  2. This is completely BS. If people believe that playing violent video games is linked to more aggression then please tell me what games were people playing in early 20th century when WW1 took place or in mid 20th century when WW2 happened.

  3. When I play violent games (ex. GTA, Call of Duty or others) doesn't effect for me because I can think where good moral or bad moral.

  4. bad parents not games … that parent.. the one that wants to blame it all on something else not themself
    vaping thc & games oh my

  5. I grew up murdering my friends on goldeneye…somehow theyre all still alive. Video game killing is a stress reliever for me. Headshots make u calm down and chill out

  6. Having watched most of the video and not retaining most of it 🙂 I think the argument can be made that even though there maybe be those that have REAL ties with "other violent realities " that there may than also be those that gain the courage to become the heroes. Not everyone wants to be the bad guy, but sometimes you need to see through their eyes. The study of human nature even..

  7. Non-American here, I don’t understand why politicians blame video games for violence. Why don’t the politicians ban guns?

  8. It's not that the games make the kids more violent, but it does train them in what to do in violent situations. Thus if the child is thrust in such a situation, from being bullied to being forced to defend themselves, these children will have this training going forward. We constantly see the world outside as hostile, even though we have repeatedly demonstrated that it does not have to be, and we constantly get aggressive rulers that rally us to fights we didn't even knew we had, and in that regard aggressive entertainment has always been a favorite of ours, from the Avengers movies to Call of Duty. But it is the problems that these games teach us to solve that we train ourselves to do and it says a lot that a lot of us are training for warfare. Too bad The Sims is so monetized….

  9. there IS No Discussion on the subject. its Stupid. im 28 and ive been playing Doom since i was 5 years old and i never shot up a school.

  10. there is no debate, just delusional boomers who think fictional violence causes real violence. the same people gleefully watch violent movies and don't make the same argument

  11. The rest of the world also has violent video games. How is this still a thing. Most of the world doesn’t have a problem with these games

  12. 6:45 American kids literally had weapons in their hands at school shootings but I doubt videogames provided them with that

  13. From the dislikes and comments I take it most didn't actually finish this video and observe it's objective… And subjective conclusion.🤷🏾‍♂️. Merica.

  14. Humans are animals & are naturally violent since the dawn of man we have been killing each other for no other reason than tribal rivalry.. Humans are the least violent we have ever been as a species at any point in history.. Yet we act like violence is out of control even know its far from the reality…

  15. I will tell you why other countires with high percentage of gamers dont have the same problem. Its because unlike the US people from these counties are generally better at parenting and guiding their kids (do you know how strict asian parents can get?) People from the US might think this kind of parenting is wrong but i has been proven to be very effective in making responsible adults. Just look at the current generatins of the youth in the US with their PC, SJW culture they dont even know sarcasm and jokes anymore getting infuriated at almost everthing they see.

  16. Games shown were ones I grew up with and some before I was born.

    I have no violent history whatsoever and been gaiming for over 40 years. What I learned from through gaming is helping me at work fighting cancer, tools teaching my daughter learn about the world and infinte patience.

    These boomer researchers have NFI. Availability of guns, intolerance, lack of mental health and support are the issues.

    Doom never thought me to be a killer. It did teach me how to solve seemingly impossible problems by thinking differently for a given situation.

  17. People should watch the video before commenting or disliking it lol.

  18. They need to add in one more variable to their study, psychotropic drug use mixed with violent video games. People that are not on psychotropic drugs playing the same games versus people using them while playing the same games is a different story. Every school shooter that has had a history of playing violent video games has also been on psychotropic drugs. So the drug use is the real culprit, people that have all of their faculties together while playing any of these games know that the game is just a game, regardless of how violent it is. The increased aggression can be a thing not because of the violent video game itself, but because of the competition itself. People get angry playing games like Fortnite, COD or any competitive Multiplayer PVP game. People get angry when they lose repeatedly, they break things scream and rage. Just watch some of the streamers play some of these games, many rage when they lose, some built their channels off of that rage. But not all streamers get angry when they lose, it depends on the person. It all goes back to what is valued by the individual themselves. If the person is only concerned with being the best then the results of the game will send them into a rage when it doesn't go their way. Whereas others who value having a good time, escaping the daily grind by playing a game will value the fun over being the best player in the world. But even then, the people that get mad over losing in video games get over it and it doesn't lead to any type of violence.

    David Katz (2018 Jacksonville Tournament) was twice hospitalized and was on psychotropic drugs. Look it up, just search here on YouTube for Jacksonville Shooter on Psychotropic Drugs. The content creator didn't get many views here on YT with that topic, because it's not the type of content that gets promoted, but it is what it is. That's the real issue, the psychotropic drug use in combination with the games, not the games themselves. People that play the games that are not on these types of drugs don't have any issue except for normal competitive raging from time.

  19. The fact that top psychologists are polarized on the subject is just more evidence that psychology is nothing more than speculative psuedo-science.

  20. Japan plays more video games then any country and don't have violence issues. So what's the real problem? Video games or the American Culture?

  21. i dont believe that playing a violent game makes you angry. an angry person is born with temper. but I strongly think that playing games can make your life miserable. I feel exhausted playing games for a long time and make me think I am useless. that's why I stay away from it. I just think playing games is a waste of time.

  22. World war 2 was caused because of video games. It's said Harry Truman dropped the atom bomb after he was influenced playing gta 5.

  23. I am not American but wheres the debate about liberal indoctrination causing violence? Because from what I see on TV it's usually the pink hair tri-gender demons runnign around the street in antifa masks beating innocent people these days !

  24. Everyone could argue that mainstream media cause way more violence than video games
    Mainstream media is by far the most evil and corrupt media of them all
    If you go after video games but not after the one who push for actual real war, you are just hypocrite and dumb
    Just go away please, we don't like or need you

  25. False fake news. Ideological dogma pushed as science. This has been throughly studied. If some dipsit ran another study to disprove what he didnt like I'd like to see the study replicated first before I'm willing to listen.

  26. I’m sure video game violence can’t hold a candle to the Police, Military, Politicians & Racism when it comes to violence!

  27. This video isn’t bad, I don’t get why it’s getting so much hate. It’s giving an unbiased view of both sides of the argument. The video isn’t saying video games are bad, its saying they may or may not be.

  28. I agree video games Don't make people violent it entertainment and the problem is peoples lack of knowledge on what's real, its something you do for fun

  29. I think the main reason that when you fail a game over and over again you'll get more frustrated thus you become more aggressive and that is especially true for violent games like Fortnite.

  30. I love how they cut straight from mortal kombat fatalities to a congressman talking about night trap. You ever play night trap? The most horrifying thing about it is the resolution lol

  31. apparently, people think that shooting inside games can make a person become a real marksman. Can a person who sits their ass playing games suddenly can have the strength to throw a spear 100 ft. Yes apparently, gamers now can use magic for real.

  32. Bad parents blame video games for their kids acting up. Well, it's still on the parents because chances are the game they bought their kids were rated M.

  33. I believe that video games does have an effect, whether it have a positive or negative, it depends on the individual. How they were raised,( moral, ethic, religion, race, income, parenting, etc.), determines how video game effects the individual.

  34. Diversity causes violence not video games. You can't mix ppl of different cultures and tribes and expect them to get along. 😂 These things are like gravity. More diversity = more violence. But they will blame everything else. 😂

  35. Reason to dislike the video
    1. Bad video title
    2. Didn't even try to make comparison of other things that cause people to be violent

  36. "After playing violent games, kids who found gun will touch the gun and aim it."

    If there's no video game, kids likely still play the gun they found, because they've must seen people use it.
    but if there's no gun in the first place, nothing will happen, kids will continue to play their games.

    And that's why video game is the one to blame…

  37. I mean, there are links between entertainment and personality and they even pretty much show and confirm simple things like sexual selection and preferable traits. They memes basically. Obviously there are correlations between video games and personality traits and even behvaiour, whether its causal and or a reflection of a trait, its the debatable part.

    That said, they specifically said there are increases in agression but NOT violence. Meaning games may inspire or trigger mechanisms the same way they trigger dopamine, but not necessarily mean they may cause someone to become a killer, also meaning if someone plays a game and goes around killing then there is already something wrong with the person, not the video game.

    I think its dangerous simply saying video games are dangerous on a public level because parents will simply freak out, but on a biological level its also naive to say there is completly no relation between what we consume and what we are or do.

  38. How come the news media never look into how much impact they themselves have on violence in this country? Theys never do that because then they would have to quit reporting on school shooters

  39. If they think that violent games are bad, then they should also ban violent/explicit movies and tv shows. It's not fair they're blaming certain type of media like videogames with bad things happening in our society. That's unconstitutional.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *