David Lemmink

Professor Leech
ENGL 2089 (036)
9 October 2015
The Truth Regarding Violent Gamers
The Atari 2600 revolutionized what would become a billion dollar industry, and
PlayStation introduced the world to 3-D gaming. Nowadays, the line between reality and game
blurs, with graphic capabilities exponentially rising. Pixelated environments of old yield to rocky
outcrops and snow-covered peaks of the latest first-person shooter. Even the popular style of
game has changed, and FPS developers are the top of the food chain. This has raised a question
in the public conscience: do these realistic games where you compete in goring and slaughtering
the enemy having real-world impact on the behavior of gamers? Simply put, no, there is no
definitive correlation between aggressive tendencies, violent crime, and gaming itself, yet a
narrative suggesting the contrary within academia and media persists. It is important to discern
what is true in this debate, and present the facts as they are without any smoke and mirrors.
One activist stands out among the rest when the topic of violence in video games is
discussed. Jack Thompson has used scientific studies from Harvard and Indiana University to
justify the re-rating of games like Grand Theft Auto III: San Andreas. He believes that teen
brains are neurobiologically different than adult ones, and to Thompson, this means violent
games should be rated Adult Only instead of Mature [1]. He also has filed several lawsuits
unsuccessfullyagainst game developers that he holds responsible for these incidents. He went

so far as to hold Bill Gates responsible for the Virginia Tech shooting, calling Counter Strike a
killing simulator and claiming it taught people how to kill and to enjoy killing [5]. While it
may appear that Thompsons claim has some credibility, evidence to the contrary has been
presented by an American Psychological Association magazine as well Rutgers and Villanova
joint report. The study takes an unbiased approach and examines the possible publication bias
of news media [1]. The correlation between the sale of video games from 1978-2011, and
compared it to the levels of aggravated assaults and homicide. The results show the opposite of
what Thompson claims; a negative correlation can be found in both assaults and homicides in
relation to video game sales. Further, whenever a violent video game was released, shortly
thereafter there was no increase in aggressive behaviors or homicides. In fact, with the three
games the study used, the rate of both crimes dropped in the succeeding 12 months. This may
have been a result of redefining what aggressive behaviors included (most of the studies siding
with Thompson included acts such as giving an unpleasant noise or too much hot sauce to
another person, behaviors that the study suggests are mundane) [2]. When asked about these
findings in a recent interview, Jack Thompson called the study bull crap, and refused to look
further into it. The science is settled, he said [1]. While this isnt a guarantee that Thompson is
wrong, his refusal to analyze the thorough investigation conducted suggests that his narrative
does not have a solid scientific basis, relying more on the vagueness of a word like aggressive
to skew numbers.
A murky narrative, however, lingers in the media mainstream. The American
Psychological Association, though it did contradict with Thompson on some level, suggested still
that violent video games contributed to aggressive behavior. BBC published a long piece on the
issue, and stated that over 200 academics criticized the findings of the APA. An associate

professor of psychology at Middlesex University said, If you play three hours of Call of Duty
you might feel a little bit pumped, but you are not going to go out and mug someone. Similar to
Thompson and many who believe video games lead to violence, the Columbine shooting is
brought up as evidence of causation. This, however, is considered an extreme case, as most
people who play violent video games do not become violent just from playing [3]. Time and CBS
both published articles (on the same day as BBC no less) reporting on the same APA research.
CBSs article is significantly more thorough, and mentions how Congress tried to pass
restrictions on violent video games after the Sandy Hook shooter obsessively played violent
video games. It also mentions the opposition to the APAs research, and how it is difficult to
prove a link [between aggressive behavior and violent video games] in an experimental setting,
according to Ohio State Universitys Brad. J. Bushman, a veteran of sorts in this debate. The
decline in youth violence to a 40-year low is cited by the Entertainment Software Association in
their disagreement with the APA [4].
Unfortunately, it is hard to reach a definitive end to this debate. There are factors beyond
the television screen that must be considered in the discussion, but it is difficult, if not
impossible, to simulate them in an experimental setting. Ones upbringing and environment play
an integral part in this discussion, but are difficult to investigate with any definitive answers.
With the data presented though, it can be concluded with certainty that the rate of murder and
aggravated assault are lower than they have been in almost three decades. Meanwhile, video
game sales have only risen in that time. Over 90% of children play video games, and 85% of
those games contain some sort of violence [4]. If one were to believe in a link between violent
behavior and violent video games, surely those numbers would reflect a positive correlation, yet
they dont. It is important to make clear what is known for certain and what has not been

concluded. The truth should not be distorted by the findings of people like Jack Thompson, who
refuse to look at all of the data and make assertions based on little to no evidence. It is our job as
people to make the narrative clear, and ensure the facts are clearly laid out before us whenever
the topic reaches into mainstream media.