Why are video games still America’s scapegoat?

Are video games too violent? The 90s era debate conjures images of panicked parents screaming, “Think of the children!” and politicians clambering to draft statements on issues they know next to nothing about. It’s re-entered the mainstream after remarks made by the United States’ president in the weeks following February’s high school shooting in Parkland Florida, postulating that virtual violence could be impacting today’s youth. Is gaming to blame for violent outbursts or is it just the latest scapegoat, following in the footsteps of rap music and comic books? Would a ban solve anything, and why should we in the UK care about this US-centric argument?

Scientists, much like politicians, have concerned themselves with links between violent behaviour inside and outside  the virtual world. Published papers have argued both sides, but the accuracy of some have been called into question. The issues with such studies revolve around how measurements are taken and how tests are performed.

studies have suggested that violent video games may decrease aggression long term, acting as catharsis

Firstly, how do you measure how violent a person is? Brad Bushman, a proponent of video games causing violence, sums up the problem best; “We can’t give our participants knives and guns and see what they do with them”. As such, studies don’t often look explicitly at violent but instead aggressive behaviour, with tests like the ‘short story test’, where the participant finishes a short story based on a prompt, and ‘the hot sauce test’, where they are asked to give a person hot sauce and judged based on how much they give and how spicy it is. Other tests can be similarly quirky; criticised for their subjective nature and their lack of translation to real-world violence.

Furthermore, studies often don’t account for other potential sources of aggression, like a subject’s home life or the competitive nature of most games. A 2013 study by Paul Adachi and Teena Willoughby found that based on results from 1492 adolescents over a four-year period, playing competitive non-violent games made participants more aggressive than non-competitive non-violent games. Other competitive activities like sport and gambling have also been shown to increase aggression, demonstrating that gaming is not the only aggression-inducing pastime.

Image: Flickr/BagoGames

The studies that account for external factors and best simulate real gaming sessions show that violence’s inclusion has, on average, very little impact on short term aggression. To go further, studies have suggested that violent video games may decrease aggression long term, acting as catharsis, and can boost real world kindness and help better develop a moral compass by showing players the consequences of their actions.

This is further backed up by real world data. Analysis of the ten countries with the largest video game markets shows no correlation between playing games and violent crime. While America has a high violent crime rate, the other nine have some of the lowest rates worldwide, and 8 of these countries spend more per capita on gaming than America.

I’d like to fight for the inclusion of violence in games: it improves a game’s realism, making narratives more compelling and providing stakes for online matches.

However, to listen to the parents from earlier, what about the children? Evidence exists that violent games can negatively impact a young child’s behaviour as they find it harder to distinguish reality from fantasy. Though this is already handled by age ratings systems implemented in the majority of countries, with the most violent of games rated suitable only for older teens or adults who can make that distinction. While ratings are not always enforced by law, parents and retailers should use them and take responsibility for what media their children ingest, and not rely on governmental intervention.

Despite this, America’s present administration is currently concerned with solving this non-existent issue, staying on brand with their disregard for scientific evidence and ignoring the actual problem. Talks of higher tax rates and outright bans have been tossed around, but what impact would that have outside of the US? As gaming’s second biggest market, a significant policy could produce ripple effects. Publishers, seeing decreased revenue opportunities, could divert and focus more development on kid-friendlier games. If other countries choose to follow America’s lead, violence in video games could be completely eradicated.

Image: Flickr/BagoGames

For those saying, “So what?” I’d like to fight for the inclusion of violence in games: it improves a game’s realism, making narratives more compelling and providing stakes for online matches. It’s fun, there’s no better enjoyment than performing over the top ‘fatalities’ in Mortal Kombat or headshotting an enemy in Halo; and perhaps most importantly, developers should be free to include or not include themes and ideas at their own discretion; governments shouldn’t be telling them what form their art should take.

Thankfully talk of bans is still hypothetical, and hopefully increased interest will help to spread the evidence that games don’t cause real world violence, so that this outdated issue can be shelved once and for all.