Do videogames influence violence? Or Cause it?

[raresilverdragon]

You know how some people always say that videogames influence or are the cause of violence? Well what if that was true? What if that was false? Violence has been with us since the dawn of time, but videogames has been with us for only a few decades. So videogames can't be the cause of all violence. However, some argue that videogames are the cause of [some] violent acts.

Some people also claim that videogames influence violence/violent acts. What with all the shooting, fighting, etc., but are videogames really a factor to some (if not all) violent crimes now and these days? Tell me what you think. Explain your thoughts!

[Neamhain]

There was a study I saw at semi-recently (though I doubt I could find it again) that claimed that video games can affect some children, but not all, and make them more likely to have violent tendencies. It is unlikely that they would affect someone.

My brother is a grand example of a child who was affected by video games. When we were little, we used to play a game that had some violence in it. It was not very much and the game was not even based around it. There were swords in it though. He started to beat me with his wooden sword and try to mimic the violence in the game with me as his target. My parents grounded him from the game, and since I am younger, I also was no longer to play it. After about a week, he stopped attacking me with his sword as much and after a month, he was normal again.

[Tekla]

Here's a study from 2014 regarding this: full journal article.

Also a good resource, listing pros and cons of violent videogames: here.

I don't think there's a significant correlation between violent media (videogames and otherwise) and increased violence. Violence among people has been around for a very long time and videogames have been around for the blink of eye by comparison, so videogame violence translating to real life violence would most likely be a minority of causes behind violent acts in reality.

I do think, however, that young children - who are impressionable by nature and still learning to differentiate fantasy from reality - can be more influenced by violent media than older people. Call me archaic but I think children under 12 should spent most of their playtime outside, not in front of tv playing a violent videogame.

[MothballMilkshake]

I think the difference between things like violence, and, say, sexism in videogames, is that the people playing the games are taught on a daily basis that these things are not ok to do. Society as a whole lets you know it's only fantasy, however the way women are treated in videogames, be it subtly or outright, definitely condones that behaviour because society as a whole treats it as ok.
So really it comes down to separation of reality/vs imagination. The majority of people know or are taught that it's not reality when they see players run others down with cars or go on shooting sprees - however that's why children shouldn't be playing things like CoD or GTA, because they haven't yet got the same understanding of what is and what isn't reality.

[donapel]

I have to agree with Tekla. I believe exposure to violence while we are still in our major developmental years might have some kind of an effect but after that I think it only overtly affects those that are predisposed to violence. And not to be too controversial here, but I think this attention to video games is a way to shift the blame away from more personal causes (ie mental health, developmental issues, abuse, etc).

Also, as a random side note, why is the focus so much towards video games? There is and has been extreme amounts of violence in all aspects of media and history that could, using the same reasoning as those blaming video games, cause behavioral issues. If we place blame on one aspect, would we not have to place blame on all?

Eh, sorry for the mini-rant. This topic hits a little close to home since I am a gamer but, outside of gaming, am pretty much a pacifist.

[Tekla]

Also, as a random side note, why is the focus so much towards video games? There is and has been extreme amounts of violence in all aspects of media and history that could, using the same reasoning as those blaming video games, cause behavioral issues. If we place blame on one aspect, would we not have to place blame on all?

The difference between watching violence and acting it out is almost certainly one of the key factors with this debate.

There are numerous videogames where the player must carry out violent acts on NPCs or even other players - halo, call of duty, GTA, gears of war...and in many cases, violence is also voluntary. And many games also have "fantasy violence" which is still violence, even if it's carried out against, say, an alien.

It's different to see a violent act carried out versus actually being the perpetrator, and that worries people (namely parents). I'm not saying nonplayable violence does not or cannot have an effect on behaviour, but I think acting it out in a game triggers a fear in people that it might transfer to the player.

[Igloo]

I'm speaking from personal experience here, but it really depends on the child and how their parents raise them mostly, let's say a child plays violent videogames (Like GTA,Call of Duty etc etc) and the parents tell the child that the things they can do in the game they should never do in the real world, they would be less likely to actually be violent to others, now if the child played violent videogames and the parents could care less if they did it or not, they would probably be more violent

I've grown up playing violent videogames (Along with my Sister) and we haven't committed any crimes and we arent violent along with most of my other friends/family.

Some kids are more impressionable than others and that plays a major roll too. All in all I don't really think it does, it just depends

[sannesara]

I've currently finished my Developmental Psychology subject (as I'm taking up Psychology (science, not arts)), and because I will not and absolutely cannot declare an assumption of mine as a fact, here are my two cents about this issue. Bear with the theories I'll have to add in.

Let's take M. Rothbart's Temperament theory on babies. She said that they have three temperaments, namely: Easy, Slow to Warm Up, and Difficult. Each temperament need a certain way of dealing with them: with Difficult requiring the most patience. Since they're pretty much easy to understand just by the name, let's continue to the other theory, which is D. Baumrind's parenting styles.

According to that, there are three parenting styles: Authoritarian (Parents and children come to a decision and are equal in importance), Authoritative (Parents' decisions are higher and stricter leaving the children confused and anxious), and Permissive (Parents do not discipline much therefore the children grow up angry when they do not get what they want). It is said that Authoritarian is the style to go, and that parents should be firm but affectionate, that they should explain their actions to their children.

If, and if, the parents fail to match their parenting style with their baby's temperament and later on as they grow older, their children would most likely 'rebel' or 'be easily influenced'. Therefore, if those children play violent video games, there is a higher risk of being influenced by the violence. The more they are led astray, the more they will strive to find their direction in life on their own (whether it's good or bad won't matter to them because they're too young to know what is right and wrong).

To conclude this part, I'll have to say that parenting is a huge contributor as to why some children tend to be violent while they play video games.

This may seem unrelated, but I'll say it anyway. If you'd rather not read a long post, feel free to dismiss this part:

Everyone who took any Psychology subjects have probably heard Sigmund Freud's name, and one of the Neo-Freudians (people who agree with Freud's concept but dismiss the sexual part, as Freud's theory is psychosexual) named Erik Erikson formulated the "psychosocial theory". To cut the whole theory short, he said that a certain stage must complete a certain 'crisis' in order to be, well, happy in life. For example, adolescents' (from 12-19 years of age) crisis is entitled "Identity VS Role Confusion", which is if they have do not know what they want to do in life or who they really are (their likes and dislikes), they will most likely carry this crisis even as they turn as adults, even though they should be tackling another new crisis which is designated for adults.

If, for some reason, babies, toddlers, or kids in their middle childhood (most critical stage) fail to resolve their stage's crisis, it will leave them more vulnerable to influences, like drugs, early sex, and to some, resorting to violence as they have seen in video games.

[Wystream]

I don't believe that video games necessarily link to violence, although it may desensitize it a bit in certain situations. I believe there are many factors leading to violence.
People are affected by their adult peers' actions, what society teaches them, and other things.
Violent video games, I believe may affect impressionable children. A child playing games where the hero is a trigger-happy maniac can affect the child into thinking that it's okay to act that way. I remember how as a kid, I'd be a goofball since my favorite characters were just as silly. Kids are just sponges to things since they're still growing. I believe as long as the parents don't allow them to play with violent games (ESRB ratings are there for a reason), then the probability of the child acting violently can be lowered. But not erased since all humans are capable of violence. Living in violent conditions,financial struggles and easy accessibility to guns are, in my opinion, more closely tied with growing violence.
Violent video games to adults, I think, don't affect them as much. If a mentally ill person plans to act violently, they will find inspiration anywhere; a book, for example, inspired someone to kill one of the Beatles band members. Does this mean that books cause violence? No, it's just one person using anything as an excuse to act out.
There are just too many factors and not enough research to make a concrete answer.

[aButteredBanana]

Personally, I do not think video games influence violence. I know many gamers who play violent games such as GTA, COD, Battlefield, etc, and do not appear to be aggressive or violent. I do think that there is caution to be had when younger audiences (lower than the consumer rating [E, E10+, M 18+, etx]) as they can imitate actions of characters which can bring harm to others around them. I don't think they would mean to harm them, but to impress them. However, this is my impression of it. As kids grow, they should begin to realize that the behavior is fictional, and should stay that way.