According to the Office for National Statistics (2018), violent crime has been slowly rising over the past 15 years. In response to this, many researchers have raised concerns over the content within video games, violent first-person video games in particular due to the explicit violence displayed to those playing (Staude Muller, et al., 2008) as well as the immersive aspect of playing such games. The primary research done into violent video games showed that 89% of video games available in the market contained elements of violence as well as around half displaying serious violence against another character (Children Now, 2001). However, some researchers believe that there is bias shown throughout the research that looks at the relation between these violent video games and violent behaviour. Despite this, it would be impossible to just ignore all the research done into video games thus why this essay will aim to look at and critically analyse the research done in this field over the past fifteen years. This time period has been chosen due to the fact that this is the time when video games started to become less ‘block-like’ and more realistic when it came to graphics development. This essay will first examine the research done into desensitisation as this would be a key part into contributing to an individual’s ability to commit a violent act/crime. It will then go onto examining the research done into the relation between violent video games and violent behaviour. Therefore, this essay will aim to show that the gameplay of first-person violent video games is likely to increase some of the violent behaviour within individuals, leading to a rise in violent crime.
It has been argued that ‘dehumanization oils the wheels of aggression and violence against others’ (Bastian et al., 2012:486). To support this idea, some studies that were conducted on children and adolescents have indicated that, when an individual plays violent video games, there is a certain lack of empathy shown by the individual as well as a general acceptance of physical violence (Anderson, Gentile & Buckley, 2007; Krahe & Moller, 2004) and similar findings have also been found with the adolescents that were studied (Bartholow, Sestir & Davis, 2005; Anderson et al., 2004). Bartholow, Bushman and Sestir (2006:533) argued that the current resreasrch only looked at the emotional component of desensitisation to violent media so therefore, they examined the cognitive component of this effect. They found that continuous exposure to violent video games is ‘reflected in the brain as blunted evaluative categorisation of violent stimuli’ (Bartholow et al., 2006:533). On the other hand, Sigurdsson, Gudjonsson, Bragason, et al., (2006) did not find a strong correlation between empathy and excessive exposure to violent media, including violent video games. This therefore demonstrates the how contradictive research can be when looking at the relation between violent video games and violent behaviour.
Staude Muller, Bliesener and Luthman (2008) studied the effect of a first-person-shooter (FPS) game on the level of desensitisation displayed by a group of 42 German, adult males. In this study participants were asked to play one of two games with both games displaying a different level of violence. After they had played the game, the participants’ emotional and physical responses to violent stimuli were then measured. The results of the study indicated that those who played the more violent game exhibited a weaker response to a later adhesive stimuli therefore implying that they had developed a degree of desensitisation to violent stimuli after their gameplay.
Another study that supports Staude Muller, Bliesener and Luthman’s (2008) findings is that of Bushman and Anderson (2009). During their study, an experiment was conducted on the short-term effects on influencing the rise of ‘helping’ behaviour that would be considered a key element to the levels of desensitisation following exposure to violent media. In this experiment, university students were asked to play a violent, first person, video game in a laboratory and were then asked to act out a fight outside of the laboratory where one person would end up being injured. The time it took for the students to help the injured individual was recorded and rated as ‘likelihood to perform helping behaviour’ (Bushman and Anderson, 2009). The study found that it took those who had played the violent video games longer to respond (450% longer), were more likely not to notice the incident or to not think the incident was serious compare to the participants who did not play the violent video game. However, some of these response could be due to the fact that the experiment took place in a laboratory as well as some of the participants taking psychology degrees which would mean that some of the students taking part could have been suspicious of the overall aim of the study.
The helping cycle that was developed by Latane & Darley (1970) provides another explanation for why the student’s response times may vary. Latane & Darley argue that individuals will only engage in behaviour that is deemed ‘helpful’ if they’ve a) noticed the situation and b) feel as though they have the skill-set necessary to deal with the said situation. As the participants were just students in a university laboratory, they may not have felt that they were the most qualified individual available to help with the injured person and would have therefore been more than likely to hesitate before helping. Research done by Weiner (1980) also suggests that if a person believes that they are not at fault, they are more likely to help, and this would mean that, if a participant in the study believed that it was their fault that the individual got injured then this would affect their response time. As well as this, the participant may be fearful of being hurt themselves as the individual was hurt after an argument with another person. This would therefore put into question the validity of the results attained by the study done by Bushman and Anderson (2009). As a result of this, it would be recommended to do further research with other, more personal variables, such as the individual’s willingness to help in other situations as well as their levels of empathy, if a more definite conclusion is to be drawn as to whether violent video games affect an individual’s level of desensitisation.
In terms of the relationship between first person violent video games and violent behaviour, the have been multiple short-term, experimental studies on children and the playing of violent video games which have reported a rise in ‘aggressive’ behaviour in those as young as 4-7 years of age (Silvern & Williamson, 1978). There have also been shot-term studies on adolescents were results indicated that a person is more likely to display aggressive, or even violent behaviour, if they had just played a violent video game compared to a more docile video game (Anderson, Gentile & Buckley, 2007; Konijn, Bijvank & Bushman, 2007). There have been reports if similar findings with undergrad students whom displayed a high level of verbal and physical aggressive behaviour after extended game-play of first-person-shooter games (Anderson & Dill, 2000; Anderson et al., 2004; Anderson, Gentile & Buckley, 2007; Bartholow, Sestir & Davis, 2005). Nevertheless, the majority of the studies done are on adults due to there being ethical issues with exposing children to such violent media such as video games of which the children are not the target audience.
One study that supports the notion that first person, violent video games contribute to violent behaviour and criminal activity is that of Hopf, Huber and Weib (2008) where a longitudinal study was conducted on 314 adolescents who where 12 at the time of the initial testing and then 14 at the second testing. The study looked at the child’s exposure to violent media and video games and reported that this exposure was the strongest contributing factor to any criminal and antisocial behaviour displayed by the child. The researchers highlighted that it was this early exposure to violent media and video games in particular that had a substantial influence on the display of aggressive behaviour later in life. Another supporting study is that of Gentile (2005) who also conducted a longitudinal study, but they took three years instead of two and had a significantly higher number of participants (430 children who were aged 7-11 years; 607 who were aged 14 years; as well as 1,441 undergrad students). The study looked to examine the relationship between game-play of violent, first-person video games and the levels of aggressive cognition, personality and behaviour. Gentile and Gentile observed a distinct correlation across all three groups between playing video games and a rise in direct aggressive behaviour as well as an increase in ‘hostile attribution bias that increased aggressive behaviour over the long-term’ (Gentile, 2005). For the younger group, the study found that game-play over a weekly basis correlated with a higher level in hostile attribution bias and arguments with their teachers. When looking at the older group, the researchers found that there was a correlation between playing violent video games and displays of physical aggression.
Anderson et al. (2008) also supports the notion that the playing of video games has a significant influence on violent behaviour. They conducted a study that explored the effects of violent video games on children and adolescents as well as looking at whether differences could be found between two cultures in relation to violent behaviour. The results suggested that if an individual had habitual tendencies towards playing violent video games then this will lead to a rise in their displays of physical aggression after a number of months. Due to not finding any major differences between the US sample and the Japanese sample, the researchers concluded that the societal physical aggression levels had little influence on the rise in violent behaviour and instead it was the individualistic and collective cultures that had more of an influence. The study’s generalisability is questionable as it used different methods of measuring aggression and violence for each three samples. For the younger Japanese children, they asked the participants six items from the Buss and Perry (1992) Physical Aggression Scale but only asked for a self-report measurement from the older Japanese children on their levels of aggression and violence. To measure the US sample, they asked for a self-report as well as the participants’ peers and teachers to submit a report on their levels of physical violence and aggression. As well as this, the time difference between the measurements was fairly short, 3-6 months at its longest.
On the other hand, Weber, et al., (2009) argued that it is important that the individual experiences a player has while playing violent video games should not be ignored. Their findings showed that there were very distinct experiences for the 13 males tested while they were playing a first-person-shooter game. In these games, players are expected to create their own story line through a number of choices. Because of this, the level of violence experienced may vary for each individual as well as each time they play. Weber et al. argued that researchers need to look beyond just the content of the violent video games and instead move onto to look at the individual’s unique and varying experiences while playing these games. This would suggest that making comparisons with video games effects based solely upon the content of the games will not achieve the objected of understanding the said effects and this is due to the players being affected by different factors within a game which can frequently depend on the choices made by the individual. To support this belief, DeVane and Squire (2008) have argued that ‘video game players create their own interpretations of violence and representations in their play, and as such there is a need to consider different cultural groups in future research’ (DeVane and Squire, 2008). As a result of this, there is an argument to be considered about examining the content analysis of game play and compare it to the amount of violence that individual players have created and/or been involved in.
To conclude, there has been research that suggests that violent video game play leads to desensitisation, that can lead to further aggressive behaviour and violent media exposure and this leads to further desensitisation. However, more research needs to be done in this area if a more definite conclusion is to be drawn as to whether violent video games affect an individual’s level of desensitisation. As well as this, the research explored in this essay suggests that the exposure to violent media may lead to a player displaying heightened levels of aggressive or violent behaviour. Nevertheless, it has been emphasised that there is a need to understand and explore the persons individual experiences while playing and not just the content of the game. Considering the above points, the current research findings can be interpreted to suggest that the gameplay of first-person violent video games is likely to increase some of the violent behaviour within individuals which could consequently lead to a rise in violent crime.
2019-3-30-1553949114