Health & Fitness
No Debate Among Most Experts: Violent Video Games Cause Aggression
If the violent video game issue has been settled, why is the "argument" still raging?
Playing violent video games is enjoyable, exciting and some would even say cathartic. Trying to suggest otherwise can get someone labeled a terrible meanie who just wants to take away everyone’s fun.
Sorry, but World of Warcraft is not good for us after all, and those who say that violent video games don’t cause aggression are simply wrong. It may not be a popular idea, but the vast majority of experts in medicine, neuroscience and psychology agree that violent video games are linked to aggressive behavior. So why do many people scoff at this fact? Even Stephen Colbert said there’s no link, and if he said it, then it must be true, right?
No offense to Colbert; he’s great, but he is way off base on this issue.
Find out what's happening in Haddonfield-Haddon Townshipwith free, real-time updates from Patch.
According to a “Statement on Video Game Violence” which was prepared by experts all over the world and presented in a document called the Gruel Brief:
Both the American Psychological Association (APA, 2005) and the American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP, 2009) have issued formal statements stating that scientific research on violent video games clearly shows that such games are causally related to later aggressive behavior in children and adolescents. . . . Overall, the research data conclude that exposure to violent video games causes an increase in the likelihood of aggressive behavior. . . . [V]iolent video games have also been found to increase aggressive thinking, aggressive feelings, physiological desensitization to violence, and to decrease pro-social behavior.
Find out what's happening in Haddonfield-Haddon Townshipwith free, real-time updates from Patch.
The American Medical Association states:
…the preponderance of research from both sides of the debate does support, without controversy, the conclusion that exposure to violent media increases aggressive cognition, affect, and behavior, and decreases prosocial behavior in the short term.
The American Medical Association says there is no controversy, yet some experts and video game proponents beg to differ. A recent Time.com article claims:
There is no good evidence that video games or other media contributes, even in a small way, to mass homicides or any other violence among youth.
Other articles, which can be found online in abundance, cherry-pick the small number of studies that show there is no link between violent video games and aggression while ignoring the much larger body of evidence that proves there is a link. In fact, the latter studies outweigh the former by 48 to one.
The tactics that video game champions use to fabricate the controversy mirror a similar logic presented in the following scenario: Some people smoke a pack of cigarettes every single day for 60 years, but never develop lung cancer. There are also studies that show no correlation between smoking and lung cancer, and papers that say the risk of developing lung cancer is mostly genetic. Some who have never smoked get lung cancer. Because of these facts it is clear to see that there is no proof that smoking causes lung cancer, and study after study shows that smoking does not cause cancer. Similarly, people often say things like “I play violent video games, and I am not a violent person, so I don’t believe that there is any link.” Neither of these scenarios represent credible science, but many cling to the ideas they represent anyway.
How could the facts become so twisted? It seems there is one guy running around like a character out of Grand Theft Auto, spreading the idea that there are “many studies” which prove his opinion that violent video games do not cause violence. His name is Christopher Ferguson and he appears to be the main culprit in this fallacy. He writes seemingly endless articles supporting his own research and points to the small body of evidence done by a handful of scientists who agree with him. His claims have taken hold in the mainstream media with a ferocity that is difficult to ignore. In fact, he is the author of the aforementioned Time.com article and it is difficult to find many pro-violent-video-game articles which do not, in some way, link back to him.
Dr. Dimitri Christakis, pediatrician, researcher and professor of pediatrics, explains- “Christopher Ferguson is not a credible scientist. One quack scientist makes an allegation that is false, and the rest of us have to spend so much time trying to rectify that. The vast majority of credible scientists agree that violent video games are linked to aggressive behavior.”
In this article, Yes, Violent Video Games Do Cause Aggression, so why do some say otherwise? Dr. Jean M. Twenge points out there is “plenty” of evidence that contradicts the Time article and the handful of individual, small studies and opinion pieces:
Two meta-analyses, including data on more than 134,000 people, have concluded that violent media causes more aggressive behavior in real life. These are mysteriously absent in the time.com article, which instead mentions a few small studies. This is why scientists do meta-analysis: To find the overall trend across a mass of data, instead of looking at a few studies here and there which may find conflicting results.
So if there is a large body of established evidence, two different meta-analysis studies, and recommendations from many major expert associations, why do people simply choose to believe there is no connection between violent video games and aggression? An article by Brad Bushman, PhD. explains. Reasons he cites range from “fallacious reasoning” to “denial.” A paper published by the American Psychological Association suggests it may be “because many people have their identities or self-interests closely tied to violent video games.”
Of course, the video game and entertainment industries are quite enthusiastic in presenting studies that help to bolster their bottom lines. The American Medical Association states- “Not surprisingly, the video game industry’s own research has concluded that there is no causal relationship between video game violence and aggression.”
Just like the tobacco industry, the video game industry is responsible for attempting to dupe the public, but why are people more apt to accept that cigarettes cause lung cancer than they are to acknowledge the link between violent video games and aggression? Dr. Bushman says this can be explained by the public’s lack of understanding about psychology:
The psychological process by which playing violent video games produces this result is not as intuitive to most people as are biological processes. People are probably more accepting of the idea that smoking causes lung cancer, for example, because it is much easier to grasp the idea that smoke going into the lungs, damages cells, and starts tumor growth.
The media also has a profound effect on public perception. According to Dr. Bushman, studies have shown that “over time, news stories are more likely to deny the harmful effect of media violence,” and this repetition can form people’s beliefs, even if what is being repeated is not true.
It is clear that violent video games cause aggressive behavior, but as long as the media continues to say they do not, the “debate” will continue. The question is- if the majority of scientists, The American Medical Association, The American Psychological Association and the American Academy of Pediatrics all agree on a fact and tell us that fact is true, should we believe them?
Sources:
http://www.nydailynews.com/opinion/video-games-spark-aggression-article-1.1293112#ixzz2SABsX4zd
http://www.psychology.iastate.edu/faculty/caa/abstracts/2010-2014/12AW.pdf
http://www.ama-assn.org/resources/doc/csaph/csaph12a07-fulltext.pdf
http://ideas.time.com/2012/12/20/sandy-hook-shooting-video-games-blamed-again/
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/8616820
http://www.nature.com/scitable/topicpage/genes-smoking-and-lung-cancer-804
http://rcgd.isr.umich.edu/aggr/articles/2010.Huesmann.NailingCoffinShutVideoViol.PsychBull.pdf
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2013/03/130326121605.htm
