Study On Violent Games Talks Sense

There have been many claims and suggestions that violent video games adversely affect the behaviour of players, especially children. It’s something that we hear all too often, and, in many cases, these statements are made without any solid evidence or scientific proof. However, the latest study to investigate the connection between violent video games and violent behaviour has actually come out in favour (for the want of a better word) of video games.

We have all seen the headlines that infer a video game has been single-handedly responsible for turning a child/teenager into a violent personality and many argue that certain games should be banned altogether.

No one is refuting the fact that certain games can contain over-the-top and exaggerated violence, but there are quite a few out there, those with a sound mind and a hint of common sense, that have always argued that the offender has underlying issues that are merely stimulated by certain content. And it’s this fact that a study conducted by Dr Patrick Markey of Villanova University and Dr Charlotte Markey of Rutgers Univeristy has concluded.

One’s general disposition moderates the effect of violent media. General policy recommendations based on the notion that violent videogames are simply ‘bad’ and individuals who play violent videogames will inevitably become aggressive appear to be unwarranted.

118 teenagers took part in the study which saw them play violent and non-violent video games, but, for the first time that I can recall, the players’ personalities were taken into account.

3 personality traits in particular were observed. Collectively known as the “perfect storm”, these are low conscientiousness, low agreeableness and a high level of neuroticism. With these identified, hostility levels of the players were assessed during their time spent with the games.

As many of you could have probably guessed, the findings were that those who possess the traits encompassed under the “perfect storm” banner were most adversely affected. Those who did not possess these traits were, at worst, “only slightly negatively affected,” or unaffected completely.

In among the scientific charts and diagrams lay questions and statements that, you’d think, would have always had to factor into any study on this particular subject.

Given the number of youths who regularly engage in [violent video games] play and the general concern regarding this media, it would seem likely that resulting violent episodes would be a regular occurrence. And yet, daily reports of mass violence are not reported. It appears that the vast majority of individuals exposed to [violent video games] do not become violent in the “real world.”

The games used in the study were Manhunt 2 and Tiger Woods Golf; 2 games at complete opposite ends of the violent content spectrum. The study acknowledges that the games also differ in content other than the level of violence but conclude:

…it seems unlikely that a variable other than violence might account for the moderating effect of personality occurring in the exact manner predicted by previous research, which examined the effects of violence.

The study finishes by stating that those adversely affected by violence in video games are those that have a “pre-existing disposition,” making them susceptible to violent media.

This poses those in power and those who write the headlines a couple of questions which can not be answered by simply laying all of the blame on video games:

The questions for researchers, policymakers, and laypersons become “Why do some individuals appear to be affected by [violent video games] while others are not?” and “Who is most likely to be affected by [violent video games]?”

You can read the full pdf report by clicking here, courtesy of apa.org