I was flipping through a couple of old assignments and essays just now (due to MSN not working… again!!), and in randomness I stumbled upon the following Issues title: The relationship between Violent Computer/Video Games (VCGs) and the Rising Trend of Aggresive Behaviour among Gamers. It had been part of my coursework research for the English as a Second Language component of my VCE exams, and I remember being pissed off by the presumptiousness of the statement as well as having a lot of fun disproving those words.
Something about this then triggered the not-as-distant-as-I-would-prefer-it-to-be memory of the Economics Mid-Sem test, and of studying about the Post Hoc Fallacy, ie the assumption that J causes K just because it occurs before K. Like how Xmas shopping brings about Christmas ^^ (if only, huh?)
It also reminded me of this dumb sentence that I saw while researching information for my EIL Group Presentation:
“This is not rocket science. When a kid who has never killed anyone in his life goes on a rampage and looks like the Terminator, he’s a video gamer,” Jack Thompson told MSNBC.com.
What the HELL?? Hey, don’t blame everything on gamers, dude. I don’t know what vendetta you have against us, but why are you blaming every bad egg that turns up as being a product of this hencoop instead of the next?
So… do Violent Computer Games really cause Aggressive behaviouristics just because there was a correlational rise in aggressive behaviour amongst youngsters following the increase in the distributional amount of violent computer games? Does aggressive behaviour increase just because more violent computer games are manufactured? Do people turn into mass murderers just because they are gamers? Or is this just another example of the Post-Hoc Fallacy?
The researchers that I quoted for my SAC obviously thought not (for the first one and second, lol).
One such researcher was Professor Jeffery Goldstein, Ph.D. from the University of Utrecht in The Netherlands. In his article, “Does Playing Violent Video Games Cause Aggressive Behaviour?“, he firmly stated that ‘correlational studies can tell us nothing about whether violent video games cause aggression; even if we accept that there is a correlation between amount of time spent playing (violent) video games and aggressive behavior, there is no reason to think that games are the cause of aggression (Anderson & Dill, 2000; Colwell & Payne, 2000; Roe & Muijs, 1998)’.
True, yes? Hmmm…. So what if there seems to be a correlation between violent gaming and aggressive behaviour? Hell, video games have been around for a lvery ong time. Street Fighters. Guilty Gear. Two-on-two combats, multiple-enemy combats, RPGs, MMORPGs, etc…. These are not a new occurance. Why blame crime on them? At the same time, I would prefer to point out that aggressive behaviour has existed forever. It was there when the first arguments between men broke out. It was there when a contender was first pushed in anger/annoyance. It was there when the first alpha tried to establish its dominance over the others.
For those who insist on saying that correlational studies are there to prove a point, however, here too is a little gift: ‘…there are also some correlational studies which find no significant relationship [between violent computer games] with aggression (e.g., Sacher, 1993; van Schie & Wiegman, 1997)’.
That should shut them up. Will it shut Jack Thompson up though? Hmmm. Perhaps he should be sent the following paragraph as well:
For those who would try to argue that the second set of correlational studies differed from the “aggression due to VCGs” studies because the studied participants were mostly passive and non-aggressive beings to start with, I present a rebuttal from Goldstein, (1999): ‘What is called “video game violence” is simulated aggression, different from the real thing in countless ways–they cannot “reinforce” aggressive behavior since players do not engage in any aggressive behavior in the first place.’
Wow… is it just me or does Goldstein have a really good point there? For example, I can kill half a thousand soldiers in 45 minutes when I’m tapping away at XTreme Warriors, but if you asked me to kill 500 ants in the same amount of time, I’d balk. Not because ants are icky or anything, but because I’m aware that each and every one of them is a living being with a right of survival (whereas the animated characters in VGs are not). I don’t get more aggressive just because I play violent VGs–all I do when I kill legions within VGs is release stress and tension, which could build up into something much more nasty as the Virginia Tech story illustrates. And I don’t think other gamers are that dumb, either.
In fact, Sorensen & Jessen (2000) in their article “It isn’t real: Children, computer games, violence and reality” agree that ‘the fact that the player himself must conduct violent deeds… actually makes children aware that their actions take place in a fictitious universe; computer games are in fact “games” with their own rules…they are aware that these rules do not apply outside the realm of the game, with the exception that children can include elements and rules from the games in their play (p. 121)’.
See?
It’s not that when playing a violent computer game, all we can think of is that “Oh YESSSSSS we now have the power to create and destroy, and destroy and destroy and destroy”. We are actually AWARE that this is not real. All I think, for instance, is how to get to the final objective in the most effective way–which usually involves mass homicide since having a few thousand people hot on your back and blocking your escape routes is not my idea of being efficient.
Sorensen & Jessen (2000) further state in page 120 of their article that ‘The violent elements in computer games are attractive as spectacular effects, but also because they prompt excitement and thrill… these effects contain an element of exaggeration, which is fully recognized by children… children’s fascination with violent computer games should not be mistaken for a fascination with violence in the real world” as they are “a parallel to the violent and ‘rough’ play traditionally found among boys”.
Oh yeah… true!!! Why not just say that aggressiveness has a correlation with gender, huh?? Hasn’t anyone noticed that the instigators of violence are –oh my what a revelation!– MALE???! Just look at Rugby. Notice any aggressive behaviour there, folks? Compare that with the worst that girls can think up. Merely catfights and word-slinging, and some marginalising bullying, I think. Certainly very few cases of aggression are linked to the female species!!
In line with that, I would like to include an observation that Gerard Jones made in his book, “Killing Monsters“: ‘Young girls often build upon… representations of strong women warriors as a means of building up their self confidence in confronting challenges in their everyday lives as female game characters are often portrayed as powerful and independent.’
That should explain why there are female gamers too, and not only guy gamers. But note the description/explanation for this phenomena — to build self-confidence. What does that have to do with violence or aggressiveness, hmm?
I should probably mention that Cooper & Mackie (1986) in a study that measures both aggressive play and aggressive behavior found that ‘violent video games affect the former and not the latter’.
Soooo…. aggressive play, do I hear anyone asking? What is the difference between aggressive play and aggressive behaviour? Well, perhaps by reading the words of Schutte et al., (1988) and Silvern & Williamson (1987) you will understand the difference: ‘observations of children…may confuse mock aggression (pretending to engage in martial arts) with real aggression (attempting to hurt someone)”, leading to “faulty conclusions” where “what appears to an observer to be aggressive behavior may instead be aggressive play, where there is no intent to injure anyone’.
Clear on that now? Play=no intent to injure; Behaviour=with intent to injure.
But we’re spiralling off the topic now.
So… back to the list of questions that I posed near the beginning of this blogpost.
1. Do Violent Computer Games really cause Aggressive behaviouristics just because there was a correlational rise in aggressive behaviour amongst youngsters following the increase in the distributional amount of violent computer games?
POV: I think we pretty much established that correlations mean nada, so this one is invalid.
2. Does aggressive behaviour increase just because more violent computer games are manufactured?
POV: If I’m not mistaken I also noted that aggressive behaviour existed way before violent CGs, and that people know the difference between games and reality, so that’s another blank fired at this theory.
3. Do people turn into mass murderers just because they are gamers?
POV: Considering that we have zillions of gamers in the world and only a handful of mass murderers, I think that this is safe to disprove.
4. Or is this just another example of the Post-Hoc Fallacy?
POV: Yes? No? Do people think that aggressive behaviour happens because there are violent computer games? …I don’t, but Mr Thompson sure does. Does anyone else think so? Only a 0.000001% of the world, maybe.
So yeah. Rambling (or whatever this is called) over.
Hope you had fun reading this 1555-word bitch of a blogpost ^^