Violent Video Games: Do They Lead to Aggressive Behavior or Not?

Video games for children, teens and young adults bring in $10 billion a year in the United States. Certainly some of the games offer harmless entertainment and maybe even some educational value. But the games that seem to be the most eagerly anticipated, the games that major retailer Zany Brainy says "the industry is focusing on," and the games that fly off the shelves as soon as they're released are those rated "M" for mature and "AO" for adults only.

To garner an "M" rating, the content is intended for people aged 17 and older, and may contain sexual themes and intense violence or language. An "AO"-rated game is suitable only for adults 18 and over, and may include graphic depictions of sex and/or violence.

The popularity of the games is astounding. According to a 2004 report by the National Youth Violence Prevention Resource Center, a 2001 review found that 49 percent of the 70 top-selling video games contained serious violence. Out of all games, 41 percent required violence for the protagonists to achieve their goals. And in 17 percent of the games, violence was the primary focus of the game itself.

The violence is often brutal and degrading to women. In the game "Duke Nukem," for instance, a player can enter a room with naked women saying "Kill me," while tied to posts. In the Grand Theft Auto series, one of the most popular and also most violent and controversial of the games, a player is rewarded if he has sex with a prostitute and then murders her (the most recent of the series, Grand Theft Auto: San Andreas, was the best-selling title in 2004).

Whether or not these games contribute to violent "real-life" behavior among their primary users (pre-teen and teen boys) has spurred major controversy. And, as with most hot-button issues, there are strong proponents and opponents on either side.

Yes, Video Games Cause Violence

Much attention was brought to video game violence after it was realized that the two teenagers behind the Columbine High School shootings played (and even created their own levels of) DOOM, one of the first "first-person shooter" video games (attesting to its popularity, a movie version of DOOM was just released on October 21).

The most recent study on the topic, to be published in the January 2006 edition of Media Psychology, found that playing violent video games does indeed cause violent thought patterns in the brain.

A team of international researchers observed 13 males, aged 18 to 26, for the study. It was found that, after playing a mature-rated game, 11 out of the 13 participants showed significant effects from the games.

"There is a causal link between playing the first-person shooting game in our experiment and brain-activity pattern that are considered as characteristic for aggressive cognitions and affects," said René Weber, assistant professor of communication and telecommunication at Michigan State University (MSU) and a researcher on the project. "There is a neurological link and there is a short-term causal relationship.

"Violent video games frequently have been criticized for enhancing aggressive reactions such as aggressive cognitions, aggressive affects or aggressive behavior. On a neurobiological level we have shown the link exists," he says.

Previous studies have also found such links. Said psychologist Craig A. Anderson, Ph.D.:

"Violent video games provide a forum for learning and practicing aggressive solutions to conflict situations. In the short run, playing a violent video game appears to affect aggression by priming aggressive thoughts. Longer-term effects are likely to be longer lasting as well, as the player learns and practices new aggression-related scripts that can become more and more accessible for use when real-life conflict situations arise."

Some researchers say that violent video games are worse than watching similarly violent TV programs or movies because the interactive nature of the game makes the player become involved and learn to identify with the aggressive game character.

No, Video Games and Violence are Not Related

On the other side of the coin are those who argue that no such link exists. One recent study at the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign supports this case. After playing a violent video game called Asheron's Call 2 (AC2) for an average of 56 hours in a month, no link between the game and real-world aggression was found in the 75 players (average age 28).

Said lead author Dmitri Williams, "Players were not statistically different from the non-playing control group in their beliefs on aggression after playing the game than they were before playing. Nor was game play a predictor of aggressive behaviors. Compared with the control group, the players neither increased their argumentative behaviors after game play nor were significantly more likely to argue with their friends and partners."

Another study of 35 8- to 12-year olds, in which the children played a non-violent and a violent video game for 15 minutes each, found the game playing did not alter the children's previous tendencies toward aggressiveness or empathy.

Are the Game Ratings Enough?

Just as controversial as the violence issue is whether or not the game ratings go far enough. While some contend that it's up to parents to monitor the game ratings and their children's exposure to them, a study found that many parents, though aware of the ratings and of their meanings, do not take them seriously.

"Most parents think their child is mature enough so that these games will not influence them," said Jurgen Freund, chief executive with the Swiss research firm Modulum.

According to the study of over 1,000 UK adults, parents were more concerned with the number of hours their children were playing video games than with what game they were playing.

"Parents perceive age ratings as a guide but not as a definite prohibition," said Freund. "Some may have not liked the content but they did not prohibit the game."

And while the debate is likely to continue on a large scale in years to come (California Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger recently signed into law Assembly Bill 1179, which prohibits selling or renting violent video games to Californians under 18), one thing's for sure -- kids will continue to be drawn to them, if for no other reason than because they're not supposed to have them.

"We called it Magic 18," said Freund. "The 18+ label was seen as promoting the content, promising adult content rather than saying 'my parents will stop me playing this.'"

This article was provided by the world's #1 most popular and trusted holistic living e-newsletter -- FREE to you right now at http://www.SixWise.com! The old way of thinking: "holistic living" pertains only to personal health. The new way of thinking: "holistic living" means prevention of the negative and adherence to the positive in all SIX practical areas of life: relationships, finances, career, home environment, safety and health. With the SixWise.com e-newsletter, you will get holistic wisdom from the world's top experts in all six of these areas -- completely FREE with a simple sign-up (and a guaranteed no-spam policy!) at http://www.SixWise.com

Games are a Reflection of Behavior

You are standing on a small stage yelling, "What's the name of the game?!"

"Win as much as you can!!!" comes roaring back.

"Who's responsible for your score?!"

"I am!!"

The audience is composed of ninety men, all prisoners in a federal maximum security prison.

One more thing - you're a woman.

For three years, Alicia volunteered every Thursday at FCI (Federal Correctional Institute) in Bastrop, Texas-

"I used my skills as a corporate trainer to help these men learn to shift their perspective on themselves and the world."

"Along the way the prisoners taught me as much, perhaps more, than I taught them."

"In my training business, I use games as a way to break down barriers and shift perceptions. What I came to realize is that your behavior in a game is an exaggerated reflection of your behavior in real life."

Games are an opening to behave true to our natures, to react immediately rather than with a careful response. Depending on the other players, we may monitor our behavior less in a game than in the real world, but we aren't acting differently. In a game there are no emotional holds barred.

In a game, we are allowed to be more right brained than logical. After all, "It's only a game."

Saying something is only a game tends to trivialize its importance. Precisely because we view it as trivial, and of no importance, we can give ourselves permission to let our true natures out.

When we floated this idea before a number of colleagues, several of them told us stories of self-discovery. One woman, a very sweet and kind person in "real life", was known as "the enforcer" when she played hockey in school. Another shared that, when she plays a game against total strangers she becomes "brutal" and highly competitive.

So if our true nature comes out in a game, what can we do with that information?

Can we transform situations so that we can be true to our nature? Can we make a game out of real world situations to allow our true nature to flourish? The obvious example is to view business as a game to be won. This implies competition and a winner take all attitude.

Yet Covey and others have told us about creating win-win situations. Is there such a thing as a win-win game - a game where everyone wins, where no one loses? Can you devise a game where you can put your competitive streak toward a larger goal? Can the proverbial pie be made larger? As someone said to me, to transform from "me winning" to "we winning".

What's the name of the game? Win as much as you can!

Who's responsible for your score? I am!

The game Alicia played with the inmates was called "the handshake game". She had them pair up by size, height and weight and explained the rules. "We'll play the game for 45 seconds. You get one point when your hand taps his hip; he gets one point when his hand taps your hip."

The vast majority of the pairs had a combined score of 0 points. A few pairs scored in the 10 - 20 point range.

But one pair scored 260 points.

The high scorers had realized that the name of the game and scoring responsibility did not define a win-lose (or "zero-sum") game. That is, one person did not win at the expense of the other.

Of course, the entire thing was a set-up. Alicia paired them up by size, height and weight to set the expectation that it was an evenly matched contest. She got them chanting to get their excitement up.

And she neglected to tell them that the pair was a team and the team members' scores would be combined.

"Deliberately I didn't tell them they were supposed to cooperate with their partner. I also never told them who the competitors were."

We all know that a "formal" team must cooperate to win. The revelation here was that by cooperating they could maximize their individual scores.

What's the name of the game? Win as much as you can!

Who's responsible for your score? I am!

The rules say nothing about preventing the other person from getting a high score. The pair who "got it" quickly settled into a rhythm of "one for you and one for me". And they could have kept that up for as long as the game ran. Meanwhile, the other teams were struggling and would have exhausted themselves long before the winners did. And, when the few teams who did spot the pair who "got it" there were charges of "cheating" leveled at them. "We saw what they were doing but thought they were cheating or didn't understand the rules."

The cooperation - competition confusion is nicely summed up in the concept called "the prisoners' dilemma". Two people are arrested for a crime and there is enough evidence to put them both in jail for 1 year.

The police keep them isolated from each other and offer each the same deal: "If one of you talks and the other does not, the snitch goes free and the other one gets 3 years. If you both talk, you both get 2 years."

The partners can work together (by staying silent) and both get only a year in jail. By both defecting from the partnership to work with the police they will both get 2 years.

A single defector will go free while the one who cooperated gets 3 years.

The dilemma is formed by pitting trust against greed. The temptation of greed combined with a habit of competition blinds us to a different perspective.

But don't think that only prisoners are subject to this. When Alicia has had groups of corporate executives play this game, they fall into the same behavior pattern as the prisoners. In fact, in some corporate sessions nobody "gets it".

There seems to be a dichotomy between competing and winning. The idea of cooperating to win seems odd. In fact, we see other players complain that the ones who "get it" are cheating!

What you do depends on your view of the game. If the game is seen as a one-time event, why not be brutal - there will be no consequences. But if this event is one in a series, then cooperation is clearly the better long-term strategy, if only because there will be a chance for the other to get even.

In studies of prisoners' dilemma style games (played for points and not reduced jail time) the players eventually settle into a strategy dubbed "tit for tat". Their actions are saying, "If you cooperate last time, I'll cooperate next time. If you defected last time, I'll defect next time."

Using the word "defect" helps us see the shift - the opposite of cooperating (working on the same side) is defecting to the other side.

The desire to compete and the desire to win are not the same.

Game terminology (strategies, tactics, moves, etc.) is often applied to "serious" parts of life. Because the word game has a connotation of triviality, we sometimes bristle at its use to describe the things that mean the most to us.

What if we kept in mind that 'it's all a game' - would we behave differently?

Philosopher James P. Carse writes in the first chapter of Finite and Infinite Games, "There are at least two kinds of games. One could be called finite, the other infinite. A finite game is played for the purpose of winning, and infinite game for the purpose of continuing the play."

The book's subtitle is "A Vision of Life as Play and Possibility." His premise is that a game is about the relationship between the player.

In the book he characterizes two types of players. Finite players play within the rules, infinite players play with the rules. Finite players play to end the game (with their victory), infinite players play to continue the game (by whatever means they see fit). Finite players play to win, infinite players play to keep playing.

The players who "get it" are playing with the rules looking to transform a finite game into an infinite one.

If this article has intrigued you we encourage you to look at the various "games" that you are "playing" and with whom. Who are your "teammates" and what kind of game are you playing? With increased awareness of our behavior, and the behavior of others, we are able to create a "win as much as WE can" mentality.

© Copyright 2004 Alicia Smith Consulting & Training. All Rights Reserved.

This article was written by Alicia Smith as told to John Satta

Alicia Smith is a Coach and Trainer whose specialty is helping business people to Make Money Now. She has taught over 10,000 people how to improve their business bottom lines. To learn more about her courses, products and services, please visit http://www.AliciaSmith.com