Video games unlikely to cause real-world violence

References:
Azad, A. (August 2019). Video games unlikely to cause real-world violence. Retrieved from
https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.cnn.com/cnn/2019/08/05/health/video-games-violence-explainer/index.html
Limos. M.A. (June 2019). Do video games causes violence? Data points in the opposite direction. Retrieved from
https://www.esquiremag.ph/culture/tech/do-video-games-cause-violence-a00293-20190604-lfrm
Anderson, C.A. (October 2003). Violent Video Games: Myths, Facts, and Unanswered. Retrieved from
https://www.apa.org/science/about/psa/2003/10/anderson
Stevens, A.P. (MARCH 2019). Teens who play violent video games aren’t any more violent. Retrieved from
https://www.sciencenewsforstudents.org/article/teens-who-play-violent-video-games-not-more-violent-behavior.

Markman, A. (Aug 2019). The Evidence that Video Games Lead to Violence Is Weak.
https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.psychologytoday.com/intl/blog/ulterior-motives/201908/the-evidence-video-games-
lead-violence-is-weak%3famp.

Article:

As mass shootings roil the nation, President Trump and top Republicans are citing video games as one explanation for the
bloodshed.

But experts say there is little evidence to link violent games to real-world violence.

"Games have only become more realistic. The players of games and violent games have only become more diverse. And
they're played all around the world now," said Andrew Przybylski, an associate professor at the University of Oxford who
studies digital media.

"But the only place where you see this kind of narrative still hold any water, that games and violence are related to each
other, is in the United States."

That supposed connection has its roots in early research that seemed to link violent games to aggression in players. A
2015 report from the American Psychological Association, for example, found a "consistent relation between violent video
game use and increases in aggressive behavior, aggressive cognitions and aggressive affect."

Though the report said there was insufficient evidence to link that aggression to criminal violence or delinquency, its findings
seemed to support a longstanding sense -- and fear -- that new technologies and on-screen gore could translate into
violence on the streets. But that conclusion, experts argue, isn't backed by modern research.

New studies upend link to aggression

"The general trend here is that society has a concern about new technology, parents or policymakers get involved, and
maybe the researchers don't have much experience with the technology themselves, and so the first few attempts to study
the thing are pretty poorly done," Przybylski said.

As time has gone on, he said, "the evidence has become pretty clear that, where there are correlations, it's probably because
of a third factor." For example, boys have historically been more likely to play video games, and they also happen to be
more aggressive than girls on average, Przybylski said.

This year, he published a study of more than 1,000 British adolescents that found no link between the time spent playing
violent video games and aggressive behavior. That's consistent with other recent research showing little -- if any -- link
between games and violence.
Researchers at the Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health published research in July that looked at meta-analyses of
pre-existing studies. The team found that violent video games may increase aggressive behavior, but "these effects are
almost always quite small."

And aggression, Przybylski points out, doesn't mean somebody will commit a mass shooting. "There's no doubt when a
game is really hard or very frustrating or you lose, you get pissed off." By making Tetris more difficult in the lab, for example,
his team was able to induce aggressive feelings.

"The question that you have to ask yourself is, do people go out and do mass shootings after they rage-quit 'Call of Duty'?"
He doesn't think so -- and points out that most people don't usually commit violent acts after losing a game of golf.

The American Psychological Association has yet to update its policy statement on video games and aggression, and other
groups, such as the American Academy of Pediatrics, also warn against violent media.

Video games, the academy said in 2016, "should not use human or other living targets or award points for killing, because
this teaches children to associate pleasure and success with their ability to cause pain and suffering to others." It found a
"significant" link between violent media in general and aggressive thoughts and angry feelings.

But some research suggests that, instead of predisposing young people toward violence, video games may in fact reduce
real-world aggression, allowing people to channel their feelings into gaming consoles instead of other people.

In one 2016 study, researches analyzed crime data and found that general societal violence decreased in the weeks after
the release of popular video games.

Christopher Ferguson, an associate professor and co-chairman of the Department of Psychology at Stetson University, told
CNN last year that "basically, by keeping young males busy with things they like" -- whether it's playing sports, collecting
stamps or playing first-person shooter video games -- "you keep them off the streets and out of trouble."

As for politicians railing against video games in the wake of this weekend's mass shootings, Przybylski said, "what a shame."
That talk "cheapens a hobby pursued by half of American adults," he said.

But above all, by blaming video games instead of digging deeper into the root causes of violence, "we reduce the value of
the political discourse on the topic, because we're looking for easy answers instead of facing hard truths."

Do Video Games Cause Violence? Data Points in the Opposite Direction

Do video games cause violence? This is just one of many stigmas gamers have had to cope with, such as ageism ("You're
too old to still be playing video games!"), gender stereotyping ("You play like a girl!"), and the classic non sequitur ("Video
games cause killings!"). Gamers have always had a good rebuttal for each of these assumptions, including a study that
shows gamers are better learners.
The stigma was so bad that in 1981, on the merit of Space Invaders and Asteroids, the late dictator Ferdinand Marcos
banned video games in the country because parents claimed they “wreaked havoc on the morality of the nation's youth.”
Another issue that added weight to the stigma was when the World Health Organization added "video game addiction" to
the International Classification of Diseases (ICD), the reference book of all diagnosable diseases in the world. It officially
classifies video game addiction as a disorder.

What is Video Game Addiction?

According to the ICD, video game addiction occurs when a person cannot stop playing video games even when it already
negatively affects personal and professional life.

Symptoms of video game addiction include spending up to 20 hours a day playing video games, prioritizing games over
sleep or meals, and compromising studies or work because of gaming.

The ICD does not list violent behavior as one of the symptoms of video game addiction.

Only a Small Percentage of Gamers Affected by Video Game Addiction

It is important people are aware of the symptoms, or, emergency hotlines could be flooded with parents’ calls to rescue their
children from apparent video game addiction.
The World Health Organization's expert on mental health Shekhar Saxena clarifies that not all gamers are addicted to video
games. In fact, only a very small percentage of gamers will develop the mental health disorder and their condition will only
be considered an addiction if the symptoms last for approximately a year. "This is an occasional or transitory
behavior," Saxena said.
Dr. Joan Harvey of the British Psychological Society also warned the designation could cause unnecessary concern among
parents. “People need to understand this doesn't mean every child who spends hours in their room playing games is an
addict, otherwise medics are going to be flooded with requests for help,” she said in an interview with CBS News.
Do Video Games Cause Violence? Not Really.
A thorough study on the relationship between violent video games and aggression showed no concrete proof video games
cause violence. The Oxford Internet Institute and the University of Oxford concluded violent video games are not associated
with adolescent aggression. The study is one of the most comprehensive done on the topic because it used a combination
of subjective and objective data to measure teen aggression and violence in games. It also used a large sample of 2,008
subjects with an equal number of parents and guardians.
“The idea that violent video games drive real-world aggression is a popular one, but it hasn’t tested very well over time,”
said professor Andrew Przybylski, who is the lead researcher of the study. “Despite interest in the topic by parents and
policy-makers, the research has not demonstrated there is cause for concern.” The summary of the study can be
accessed here.

Crime Rate Decreases During Video Game Releases

In a funny twist of circumstance, it was discovered that popular video games may actually be helping reduce general societal
violence. An economic study published in 2016 in the U.S. found that general societal violence decreased in the weeks after
the release of popular video game titles or editions.

The study tracked video game sales and crime rates, and found that a statistically significant decrease in crime rates occurs
whenever video game sales are higher. According to the study, a doubling of video game sales is associated with a two to
three percent decrease in crime rate.

The study’s authors admit they are not ruling out longer-term effects of playing video games, but they are emphasizing the
cathartic effects of playing video games, which could serve as an outlet for aggression.

High-profile Personalities Who are Hooked on Video Games

If you ask these high-profile personalities, “Do video games cause violence?” their answer will probably be, “No.”

Megan Young: The Miss World 2013 is hooked on role-playing games or RPG. “I think I’m an RPG-kind of girl,” she said.
“But I grew up with Super Mario and Pokemon.”
Pia Wurtzbach: Miss Universe 2015 is also a gamer, and she is hooked on the popular massive multiplayer online role-
playing game (MMORPG) DOTA. “It’s a DOTA kind of night,” said a caption on her Instagram post.
Andy Murray: The British tennis superstar is obsessed with Call of Duty: Modern Warfare. The Wimbledon runner-up
plays Modern Warfare during his spare time.
Jeremy Lin: “Me, my brothers, my friends, we play DOTA 2 when we have the time, all the time,” confesses Toronto Raptors
point guard Jeremy Lin. He says the teamwork needed in basketball is the same needed in DOTA. “The higher level you
go, the more it is about teamwork,” said Lin.
Final Verdict: Do Video Games Cause Violence? No.
Numerous studies report video games do not cause aggressive behavior. In fact, some even conclude playing video games
has clear cognitive benefits. According to DeCamp, the inaccurate assumption video games cause violence could have
been reinforced by the possibility people who have a predisposition to violence also play brutal video games. In his study,
DeCamp also considered gender and family relations, and natural attraction to brutality with the propensity to play violent
video games. So do video games cause violence? The answer is a resounding no. Playing video games, no matter how
bloody, does not predict violent behavior.

Two features of video games fuel renewed interest by researchers, public policy makers, and the general public. First, the
active role required by video games is a double-edged sword. It helps educational video games be excellent teaching tools
for motivational and learning process reasons. But, it also may make violent video games even more hazardous than violent
television or cinema. Second, the arrival of a new generation of ultraviolent video games beginning in the early 1990s and
continuing unabated to the present resulted in large numbers of children and youths actively participating in entertainment
violence that went way beyond anything available to them on television or in movies. Recent video games reward players
for killing innocent bystanders, police, and prostitutes, using a wide range of weapons including guns, knives, flame
throwers, swords, baseball bats, cars, hands, and feet. Some include cut scenes (i.e., brief movie clips supposedly designed
to move the story forward) of strippers. In some, the player assumes the role of hero, whereas in others the player is a
criminal.

The new debate frequently generates more heat than light. Many criticisms are simply recycled myths from earlier media
violence debates, myths that have been repeatedly debunked on theoretical and empirical grounds. Valid weaknesses have
also been identified (and often corrected) by media violence researchers themselves. Although the violent video game
literature is still relatively new and small, we have learned a lot about their effects and have successfully answered several
key questions. So, what is myth and what do we know?

Myths and Facts

Myth 1. Violent video game research has yielded very mixed results.
Facts: Some studies have yielded nonsignificant video game effects, just as some smoking studies failed to find a significant
link to lung cancer. But when one combines all relevant empirical studies using meta-analytic techniques, five separate
effects emerge with considerable consistency. Violent video games are significantly associated with: increased aggressive
behavior, thoughts, and affect; increased physiological arousal; and decreased prosocial (helping) behavior. Average effect
sizes for experimental studies (which help establish causality) and correlational studies (which allow examination of serious
violent behavior) appear comparable (Anderson & Bushman, 2001).

Myth 2. The studies that find significant effects are the weakest methodologically.
Facts: Methodologically stronger studies have yielded the largest effects (Anderson, in press). Thus, earlier effect size
estimates -based on all video game studies- probably underestimate the actual effect sizes.

Myth 3. Laboratory experiments are irrelevant (trivial measures, demand characteristics, lack external validity).
Facts: Arguments against laboratory experiments in behavioral sciences have been successfully debunked many times by
numerous researchers over the years. Specific examinations of such issues in the aggression domain have consistently
found evidence of high external validity. For example, variables known to influence real world aggression and violence have
the same effects on laboratory measures of aggression (Anderson & Bushman, 1997).
Myth 4. Field experiments are irrelevant (aggression measures based either on direct imitation of video game behaviors
(e.g., karate kicks) or are normal play behaviors.
Facts: Some field experiments have used behaviors such as biting, pinching, hitting, pushing, and pulling hair, behaviors
that were not modeled in the game. The fact that these aggressive behaviors occur in natural environments does not make
them "normal" play behavior, but it does increase the face validity (and some would argue the external validity) of the
measures.

Myth 5. Correlational studies are irrelevant.

Facts: The overly simplistic mantra, "Correlation is not causation," is useful when teaching introductory students the risks in
too-readily drawing causal conclusions from a simple empirical correlation between two measured variables. However,
correlational studies are routinely used in modern science to test theories that are inherently causal. Whole scientific fields
are based on correlational data (e.g., astronomy). Well conducted correlational studies provide opportunities for theory
falsification. They allow examination of serious acts of aggression that would be unethical to study in experimental contexts.
They allow for statistical controls of plausible alternative explanations.

Myth 6. There are no studies linking violent video game play to serious aggression.
Facts: High levels of violent video game exposure have been linked to delinquency, fighting at school and during free play
periods, and violent criminal behavior (e.g., self-reported assault, robbery).

Myth 7. Violent video games affect only a small fraction of players.

Facts: Though there are good theoretical reasons to expect some populations to be more susceptible to violent video game
effects than others, the research literature has not yet substantiated this. That is, there is not consistent evidence for the
claim that younger children are more negatively affected than adolescents or young adults or that males are more affected
than females. There is some evidence that highly aggressive individuals are more affected than nonaggressive individuals,
but this finding does not consistently occur. Even nonaggressive individuals are consistently affected by brief exposures.
Further research will likely find some significant moderators of violent video game effects, because the much larger research
literature on television violence has found such effects and the underlying processes are the same. However, even that
larger literature has not identified a sizeable population that is totally immune to negative effects of media violence.

Myth 8. Unrealistic video game violence is completely safe for adolescents and older youths.
Facts: Cartoonish and fantasy violence is often perceived (incorrectly) by parents and public policy makers as safe even for
children. However, experimental studies with college students have consistently found increased aggression after exposure
to clearly unrealistic and fantasy violent video games. Indeed, at least one recent study found significant increases in
aggression by college students after playing E-rated (suitable for everyone) violent video games.

Myth 9. The effects of violent video games are trivially small.

Facts: Meta-analyses reveal that violent video game effect sizes are larger than the effect of second hand tobacco smoke
on lung cancer, the effect of lead exposure to I.Q. scores in children, and calcium intake on bone mass. Furthermore, the
fact that so many youths are exposed to such high levels of video game violence further increases the societal costs of this
risk factor (Rosenthal, 1986).

Myth 10. Arousal, not violent content, accounts for video game induced increases in aggression.
Facts: Arousal cannot explain the results of most correlational studies because the measured aggression did not occur
immediately after the violent video games were played. Furthermore, several experimental studies have controlled potential
arousal effects, and still yielded more aggression by those who played the violent game.

Myth 11. If violent video games cause increases in aggression, violent crime rates in the U.S. would be increasing instead
of decreasing.
Facts: Three assumptions must all be true for this myth to be valid: (a) exposure to violent media (including video games)
is increasing; (b) youth violent crime rates are decreasing; (c) video game violence is the only (or the primary) factor
contributing to societal violence. The first assumption is probably true. The second is not true, as reported by the 2001
Report of the Surgeon General on Youth Violence (Figure 2-7, p. 25). The third is clearly untrue. Media violence is only one
of many factors that contribute to societal violence and is certainly not the most important one. Media violence researchers
have repeatedly noted this.

Theory

One frequently overlooked factor in this debate is the role of scientific theory. Pure empirical facts often have relatively little
meaning and are seldom convincing. When those same facts fit a broader theory, especially one that has been tested in
other contexts, those facts become more understandable and convincing. Recent years have seen considerable progress
in basic theoretical models of human aggression (for recent integrations see Anderson & Bushman, 2002b; Anderson &
Huesmann, in press; Anderson & Carnagey, in press).

Most such models take a social cognitive view of human aggression, integrating social learning theory, advances in cognitive
psychology, script theory, developmental theories, and biological influences. Using such general models, media violence
scholars now have a clear picture of how media violence increases aggression in short and long term contexts. Immediately
after exposure to media violence, there is an increase in aggressive behavior tendencies because of several

factors. 1. Aggressive thoughts increase, which in turn increase the likelihood that a mild or ambiguous provocation will be
interpreted in a hostile fashion. 2. Aggressive affect increases. 3. General arousal (e.g., heart rate) increases, which tends
to increase the dominant behavioral tendency. 4. Direct imitation of recently observed aggressive behaviors sometimes
occurs.

Repeated media violence exposure increases aggression across the lifespan because of several related factors. 1. It creates
more positive attitudes, beliefs, and expectations regarding use of aggressive solutions. 2. It creates aggressive behavioral
scripts and makes them more cognitively accessible. 3. It decreases the accessibility of nonviolent scripts. 4. It decreases
the normal negative emotional reactions to conflict, aggression, and violence.

Many scientific studies have scouted for links between video-game violence and real-world violence. It might seem logical
that playing violent games would have lasting effects on the brain. And those effects might influence how someone acts.
But research has shown mixed results. Some studies found a strong effect. Others found none. Those conflicting findings
have confused many people — teens, parents and scientists included.

Psychologists Andrew Przybylski and Netta Weinstein felt that a more carefully designed study might clear the picture.
Przybylski works at the University of Oxford in England, and Weinstein is at Cardiff University in Wales.

The two recruited 1,004 teens in the United Kingdom. All were 14 or 15 years old. The teens’ parents or guardians also took
part. These adults answered questions about their teen’s aggressive behavior.

The teens answered a different set of questions. Some asked about their feelings. For example, would they hit someone if
they got angry enough? Did they argue a lot? Did they tend to lose their temper? These responses in fact closely matched
what their parents or guardians had said. The researchers now felt confident they had an accurate measure of each teen’s
aggression.

Researchers then compared levels of video-game violence with a teen’s aggression. They looked for two potential links.
One was a direct relationship — that teens who spent more time playing violent video games were more aggressive. The
other was a “tipping point” — signs that teens were more aggressive — but only after spending a certain threshold amount
of time playing violent games.

In the end, the researchers found no evidence for either.

“Evidence that people point to as showing games make young people aggressive is very low quality,” Przybylski says.
“Because our study was done rigorously,” he believes that “it provided a fair test of the idea that games might cause
aggression.”

The potential role for bias

Przybylski and Weinstein had worried that earlier studies of video games might have been biased. That is, the researchers
might have gone into a study expecting one particular result. If they did, they might try analyzing their data in different ways
until they got that result. After all, looking at data in many different ways ups the chance researchers will find something; it
just might not be a valid finding.

Such multiple analyses had been especially common in studies that found a strong link between video-game violence and
teen aggression, Przybylski and Weinstein note. Perhaps these researchers had used analyses that gave them the results
they had expected. Hoping to avoid such biases, Przybylski and Weinstein registered their experiment and analyses before
they started.

This pre-registration is a process that lets other scientists review a study before it takes place.

Peer review is an important part of science. But often it happens only at the end, once a study is over. A pre-registered
study gets peer-reviewed twice. Experts review the study ahead of time. This ensures that scientists will analyze their data
in the best way for their experiment. Later, the researchers can’t change their minds about what analyses they’ll use. That
helps protect their study from bias. Later, peer reviewers will analyze the study and its findings.

Putting it to the test

“A lot of the attention from this study has been about the findings,” says Randy McCarthy. He’s a psychologist at Northern
Illinois University in DeKalb. “However,” he says, “I strongly believe the major strengths of the article are the methods.”
Specifically, he’s impressed by the pre-registration and early stage of peer review. “The methods are what give us
confidence in the findings,” he says.

Still, the study only looked at a single point in time for the teen gamers. That’s a drawback, he notes, because the
researchers still can’t say whether violent games make teens more aggressive over time. Future studies that follow gamers
over months or years could help answer this question, he says.

Teens may feel angry after playing video games, Przybylski says. But he thinks that’s due to competition. People “are more
likely to get angry after losing,” he points out.

“Games are meant to be fun,” he says. “If they stress you out, or you don’t feel good about them, spend your time doing
something else.”
The weekend of August 3 and 4, 2019 was a violent one in the United States. Over just a few hours, two mass shootings in
El Paso, TX, and Dayton, OH, claimed over 25 lives and wounded many more.

As has become routine, politicians took to the airwaves to talk about the factors that lead to these mass shootings. Dan
Patrick, Lieutenant Governor of Texas, focused on video games. He said, “We've always had guns, always had evil, but I
see a video game industry that teaches young people to kill.”
As it turns out, there was a paper on the influence of violent video games on behavior in the July 2019 issue of Perspectives
on Psychological Science by Maya Mathur and Tyler VanderWeele. In light of Lt. Governor Patrick’s comments, it would be
useful to explore the evidence.

As Mathur and VanderWeele point out, there have been many studies in the psychology literature that have explored the
link between video games and aggression. These studies use many different methods. Some are controlled studies in which
people are assigned to play violent or nonviolent video games for some period of time, after which people are given an
opportunity to be aggressive, and their behavior is measured. Other studies are more correlational in nature and look at
whether people who play a lot of violent video games act more aggressively or violently in their daily lives. These studies
attempt to control statistically for other factors that might lead to aggressive behavior.

There have been enough studies that several groups of researchers have done meta-analyses of the research. A meta-
analysis looks across several studies to assess whether there is a general trend in the literature. The meta-analyses done
so far have also reached somewhat different conclusions, with some arguing that the studies demonstrate a consistent
influence in which violent video games increase aggressive behavior and others suggesting that there is no consistent
evidence that violent video games make people more aggressive.

Mathur and VanderWeele looked at these meta-analyses carefully and suggest that these analyses are not really telling
different stories. In their view, a detailed look at the literature on violence and video games suggests that video games
probably do increase aggressive reactions, but that the effects are quite small. That is, playing a lot of violent video games
probably makes people a little more aggressive overall—but not much.

When we look at horrible events like the shootings this weekend, or the more than 200 mass-shootings in the United States
so far in 2019, we have to recognize that many factors play a role. Policymakers who are serious about actually addressing
the issue should look for the lowest-hanging fruit and start by developing programs that address the biggest sources of
violent behavior. That means that policymakers should pay attention to data that relates potential risk factors for committing
a mass shooting to their actual influence on violent behavior.

When explored through that lens, video games are not a good place to start. The evidence suggests that while playing
violent video games can make people act a little more aggressively in some circumstances, they do not seem to be a big
enough contributor to violent behavior in the world to warrant being mentioned as a cause of mass shootings