Matthew Croak MS2009149038219 4/1/2015

Violent Video Games and Their Negative Effects Violent videogames have a level of interaction that other forms of media do not have.

It is this level of user participation, combined with gameplay incentive, that can have a

direct and negative influence on the level of aggression in users. The element of decision-

making can impact the moral engagement in those who play these violent videogames.

Other forms of media can promote and romanticize violence, but there is something about

video game exposure and interaction that has a greater impact on a person’s own violent

ambitions.

For centuries, violence has been perpetuated through society by political influence,

territorial conquest, cultural discrimination and the like. Humans are and have been a

violent species. History has shown us that mankind has a capacity for bloodshed far

beyond what typical moral constructs depict as acceptable. Nazis and the Jews, American

colonists and Native American Indians, Blacks and Whites, social and political disputes

have resulted in violent confrontation. But with social adaptation and legislative

ratification, a civilized nation is expected to become less aggressive. As new forms of

knowledge and understanding are born, present day society should become less prone to

violence. But it seems that society has in fact become more violent, or at least more

accepting of violence, than ever before. Entertainment is one facet of modern society has,

in some ways, made violence admirable.

Violence has become a theme in various forms of entertainment. Many popular sports

around the world feature forms of violent confrontation, such as boxing, American

football, Ultimate Fighting, and the more theatrical World Wrestling Entertainment. In

movies, violence is used similarly to entertain and engage audiences. Films like Scarface,

The Godfather, The Saw series, have an abundance of violence, bloodshed, murder and

crime. So if all of these forms of entertainment and influence are not being restricted,

then why does the videogame industry receive such criticism? What makes a violent

movie more acceptable than a violent videogame? Why do violent sports, sports that you

can attend for public viewing, receive less social aversion than videogames? One

framework for violent videogames suggests that it is the actual participation in gameplay

that makes videogame violence a danger to impressionable youth.

Craig A. Anderson, a professor at Iowa State, said “large numbers of children and

youths [are] activity participating in entertainment violence that [is] way beyond anything

available to them on television or in movies.” (Anderson, from lecture PowerPoint) In

other forms of media entertainment, this participation in the entertainment violence was

never an issue. It may excite audiences to see Batman beating up the Joker on TV, or

seeing someone getting shot to death in Scarface. But without the actual participation of

the viewer, the effects do not manifest in the viewer the same way they do for video game

users. The viewer has never actually had the opportunity to act violently in other forms of

media entertainment. Viewers never had the ability to choose whether or not to actively

engage in the media violence. But what videogames provide that films and other media

cannot, is the ability for the viewer to be a part of the story, a part of the violence. Users

are inserted into the storyline directly through virtual involvement. And while users are

not physically engaged in the violence with real people and things, by means of virtual

reality they can still act violently. This action is a big part of the foundation of

Anderson’s video game framework. A study performed by an Italian research team

provides evidence to support Anderson’s framework.

The study performed was rather simple. There were two groups of high school

students, one group played violent video games and the other played non-violent

videogames. Both groups played their games for 35 minutes. After the 35 minutes, there

were tests that the participants would have to take. In order to assess the gamers self

control, users were told that they were allowed to eat from a bowl of M&M’s placed near

the computer. However, the users were also told that eating too much candy to fast was

unhealthy. Then there were two more points of assessment, one that measured aggression

and the other measured the tendency to lie or cheat. The test that measured aggression

gave the winners of the games the opportunity to blast the loser with loud noise as loud

and for as long as they wanted to. The other point of assessment, which measured

tendency to cheat, required the participants to answer ten questions. And for every

question they got right they were allowed to take a raffle ticket. The participants were

allowed to score themselves and take raffle tickets at their own discretion.

After the study was completed, the results indicated that violent video games did have

an affect on the users. “Participants who played a violent video game for only 35 minutes

exhibited less self-control, cheated more, and behaved more aggressively than did

participants who played a nonviolent video game.” (Gabbiadini, 455) Those who played

the violent videogames tended to eat more M&Ms, blast the losers louder and longer, and

take more raffle tickets than they truly earned. This study supports Anderson’s

framework because it highlights the level of involvement that the participants have while

playing the games. They have the capability to choose whether or not they eat a lot of

M&Ms despite being told how unhealthy they are. They could choose how loud and for

how long they blasted the losers, and they could choose how honest to be when taking

raffle tickets.

The level of decision-making on the part of the participants can be correlated to their

level of involvement in media. Since they were able to choose the outcome of the game

(or at least choose their actions) they tended to act more violently depending on the level

of violence in the video games they played. The violent video game group played Grand

Theft Auto III or Grand Theft Auto San Andreas. Whereas the non-violent video game

group played Pinball 3D or Mini Golf 3D. The type of game is an important

consideration in Anderson’s framework. In the Grand Theft Auto games, the user has a

wider range of actions to choose from (specifically actions that are violent). Therefore,

they have a deeper level of involvement and decision-making, whereas the non-violent

video games did not have as much violent versatility. There are very few violent options

(if any) for the users to participate in and the gamers are not rewarded for acting

violently. Therefore, they are less aggressively inclined.

In his journal article, Video Games and Aggressive Thoughts, Feelings and Behavior

in the Laboratory and in Real Life, Professor Anderson talks about the Columbine

massacre. The massacre, committed by Eric Harris and Dylan Klebold in 1999, may have

been influenced by the level of gameplay interaction and involvement that the two boys

had when they played Doom. “Harris and Klebold enjoyed playing the bloody, shoot-'em-

up video game Doom, a game licensed by the U.S. military to train soldiers to effectively

kill.” (Anderson, 772) Anderson goes on to explain that the two students took the

gameplay interaction to a whole new level beyond simply playing the game in its original

domain. The two were actually able to customize the game. They gave themselves

unlimited ammunition and actually rendered the other subjects in the game completely

powerless, as they couldn’t fight back. This introduces a new level of immersion into the

gaming spectrum: creation.

By giving the gamers the opportunity to create the scenario in which they will act

violently, Doom was able to perpetuate the violent decision-making that may have had a

hand in influencing the two boys to commit their violent acts. The level of creativity and

decision-making corresponds to knowledge and learning where the aggressive

involvement can shape a person’s views toward violence. Anderson’s theoretical

approach is called the General Affective Aggression Model (GAAM). It gives insight on

how knowledge and learned perception of violence can influence aggressive behavior. “It

does so by noting that the enactment of aggression is largely based on knowledge

structures.” (Anderson, 773)

The model begins with two input variables: personological variables and situational

variables. Personological variables are variables that come from the users themselves and

not directly from outside sources. They are more intrinsic characteristics, such as an

aggressive personality. The situational variables are variables that come from any outside

influence on the users determined by external situations and circumstances. In his article,

Anderson uses video game play provocation as the situational variable. “Both kinds of

input variables-personological and situational-can influence the present internal state of

the person-cognitive, affective, and arousal variables.” (Anderson, 773)

In his article, Gabbiadini references Albert Bandura’s Moral Disengagement Theory,

which was presented in 1999. The theory explains that generally speaking, people tend to

participate in or follow certain principles that are deemed by society (or their own

intrinsic values) to be morally acceptable. By participating in these standards of morality,

they also denounce and avoid anything to the contrary that could be considered immoral.

“However, some people convince themselves that moral standards do not apply to them

in a particular context, creating a version of reality in which reprehensible conduct

becomes morally acceptable.” (Gabbiadini referencing Bandura, 452) This level of

personal convincing can be further influenced by situational variables (if not totally

determined by personological variables). With media being so prevalent in today’s

society, it seems impossible to be immune to its influence, either consciously or

subconsciously.

These other forms of media, such as advertisements, social networking and TV/film,

can affect the behavior of a person. In today’s society, such a large media presence can

influence the actions of the media recipients (the media audience). For example, when

someone with bad skin sees and advertisement for a particular skin-care product and how

effective it is at relieving acne symptoms, the viewer will be more inclined to purchase

the product than they were before seeing the advertisement. This is also an example of a

situational variable. But what makes this situational variable different from the situational

variable of violent video games is the level of personal implication in the media element.

In the advertisement, the product presentation does not really give the viewer a choice. It

does not offer them alternatives or tell them that they are beautiful the way they are. It

does not blatantly say that the audience has to buy the product, but it does not present any

other alternatives. And of course, the advertisement media provides a more commercially

endowed situational variable rather than a moral one.

But in violent video games (particularly role play games-RPGs-like Grand Theft

Auto), you have the ability to decide whether or not to commit a violent crime. Other than

the criminal tasks that are required, there is a capacity of free range for the user to

commit whatever violent acts they want. You may be asked by subjects in the game to

commit crimes in order to further your status in the game’s plot line, but there are points

that are not necessarily part of the story. As in the Grand Theft Auto games, you may be

asked to sabotage a certain facility or establishment, but you are not required to receive

pleasure from a prostitute (or kill her after the fact) in order to advance the story. But you

can still be rewarded for committing unnecessary acts of violence and crime. And it is

this level of personal negotiation (personological variable) that is fostered by the video

game interaction (situational variable) that influences a person’s aggressive tendencies. A

prime example of the user-discretion element in violent video games is the incentive in

Call of Duty’s online multiplayer gaming option.

In Call of Duty, users can play online against other gamers who are playing the same

game on the same gaming system. So if a gamer is playing Call of Duty: Black Ops on

XBOX 360, that gamer has the ability to play against other users who are also playing

Black Ops on XBOX 360. There are different options for online gameplay, such as

“Team Death Match” and “Search and Destroy” where you and your team are posed

against another organized team (or teams) of online players with the objective of winning

the match. Aside from winning the match, you can gain another form of incentive called

experience points. “Experience Points (XP) are a numerical quantity exclusive to

multiplayer that dictates a player's level and progress in that level.” (Call of Duty Wiki,

XP) Typically, players can earn ten points per opponent killed (depending on the option

of gameplay). You are rewarded one fifth of the points per kill if you injure the opponent

and another teammate kills them. You are helping your teammate kill the opponent. This

is called an assist. You also get points for things like kill-streaks, when you kill a large

number of players in a row.

The bottom line for Call of Duty players: the more you kill and longer you keep

killing, the more experience points you get. The game designers even go as far as to

increase the incentive gamers receive if they try as hard as they can to kill an opponent

while someone else is killing them. Kill points are doubled when you kill an opponent as

you are dying. This is the benefit of the Last Stand Perk. If you have this perk, you can

crawl around on the ground with a pistol and still continue to kill enemies rather than just

dying after being shot. You are rewarded twice as many points per kill if you kill

someone while your “bleeding out.” This form of incentive encourages users to keep

killing beyond initial defeat. You are rewarded more if you can manage to keep killing

until the very end of your participation in the game. In addition to the Last Stand Perk,

most gameplay options permit you to “respawn” (start over with a new life) after a short

period of cyber death. So even after a player dies they can keep killing. Things like

headshots (one shot kills) and streak kills are all participatory and to some extent

voluntary choices. Users can choose which perks to apply to your avatar in order to make

you a more effective killer. Users can also choose how they kill an opponent and by what

means (weapons choice). It is this element of gamer discretion that is greater exemplified

in the Grand Theft Auto.

In the Grand Theft Auto game series, there is a form of incentive that, like Call of

Duty’s experience points, goes beyond monetary value. In these games, stars are used to

represent your criminal status. This is called your “Wanted Level.” Depending on how

much crime you have committed or how severe your crimes were, your wanted level

ranges from one star to as many as six. “Relatively minor crimes committed within sight

of the police may attract one star…Committing serious crimes is likely to earn multiple

stars outright.” (GTA Wiki, Wanted Level in GTA) And of course, the acts of violence are

the ones that get you the most stars. Acts such as assaulting an officer with a melee

weapon or your bare hands, hitting pedestrians with your car (or weapons), or setting

fires earn you one star. These acts of violence are not considered to be very noteworthy in

the game, but in real life are taken very seriously. By treating these acts with such little

respect, the violent game desensitizes the user to the severity of their violent choices. The

user does not treat assault or robbery as critically in the game as defined by real world

moral constructs.

In order to receive more stars, you will have to commit more notorious acts of crime

and violence. These acts include actually killing a police officer (not just assaulting),

continuing to retaliate against police reinforcement, and continual collateral damage

(such as killing pedestrians while fleeing law enforcement). Users do earn multiple stars

for your wanted level during certain missions (required parts of the game storyline), but it

seems like on missions, where you do not have as much freedom to stray from the task, it

would be more difficult to achieve a higher wanted level. If a gamer really wants to rack

up the wanted stars, they will need some free time to kill as many police officers and

people as you can. Or on the contrary, users do not have to kill any people outside the

parameters of the missions. It is completely up to their discretion whether or not to kill as

many people and do as much damage as possible. But with the incentive of both money

and wanted level, Grand Theft Auto encourages gamers to go on their own personal

rampage. The incentives of these games promote violence and simultaneously demote

self-control and moral engagement.

Whether it is the experience points in Call of Duty or the wanted level in Grand Theft

Auto, this is the encouragement that experts like Anderson use a part of the foundation for

their framework surrounding the influence of violent video games. “Recent video games

reward players for killing innocent bystanders, police, and prostitutes, using a wide range

of weapons.” (Anderson, from lecture PowerPoint) These rewards are often times

achieved through voluntary acts of violence on the part of the user. This is one of the key

points brought up by experts like Craig Anderson and Allesandro Gabbiadini as to why

violent video games are so much more influential than other forms of violent media. The

element that separates violent video games from other forms of media is the level of

participation and immersion of the audience. Gamers are not simply watching someone

else’s representation of violence in a movie, or reading about a real world act of violence

in the news. In video games, users can actually participate in the violence and choose the

means in which they assert their aggression. The decision to act violently is more

attractive to game users than the choice to participate in non-violence because in violent

video games you are often rewarded for violent participation and violent creativity. It is

the incentive for violence that perpetuates aggression in the user. And it is the actual

participation that desensitizes the user to violence. Exposure to violent video games as

well as user involvement and discretion in such games can corrupt a gamer’s moral

perspective, resulting in moral disengagement.

Referencing Anderson, Craig. (2000). Videogames and Aggressive Thoughts, Feelings, and

Behavior in the Laboratory and in Real Life. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. Vol. 78, No. 4. American Psychological Association.

Anderson, Craig. (2003). “Violent Videogames: Myths, Facts and Unanswered Questions” Psychological Science Agenda. American Psychological Association. http://www.apa.org/science/about/psa/2003/10/anderson.aspx

Gabbiadini, Allesandro. (2013). Interactive Effect of Moral Disengagement and Violent Video Games on Self-Control, Cheating, and Aggression. Social Psychology and Personality Science. DOI: 10.1177/1948550613509286

Jacobs, Tom. “Violent Video Games and Bad Behavior: The Evidence Mounts” Pacific Standard, California. (2014) http://www.psmag.com/navigation/books-and-culture/violent-video-games-bad-behavior-evidence-mounts-74372/

GTA Wiki. “Wanted Level in GTA IV” Wikia Inc., Delaware. (2014). http://gta.wikia.com/Wanted_Level_in_GTA_IV#

Call of Duty Wiki. “XP” Wikia Inc., Delaware. (2014). http://callofduty.wikia.com/wiki/XP