By: Lediya Dumessa
“US Supreme Court in its Brown v. EMA (2011) decision. In this court case, the majority decision of the Supreme Court emphasized that the evidence presented by the state of California in its attempt to ban violent digital game sales to minors was not compelling. The court commented that the state had not presented studies showing a causal link between violent game playing and real-life acts of aggressiveness” (Elson & Ferguson, 2013).
Playing video games is a popular leisure activity especially among adolescents and emerging adults. In a large study conducted in the United States, for example, about 88% of those between the ages of 8 and 18 play video games for an average of 13.2 hours a week (Adach & Willough, 2012), while another study found that 97% of children and adolescents spend at least one hour each day playing video games (Granic, Lobel, & Engels, 2014). Despite the prevalence of gaming research regarding the outcome of playing video games especially among adolescents is mixed. While some evidence associates playing video games to negative outcomes such as aggression (Adachi & Willoughby, 2012), other evidence suggests that there is a lack of compelling evidence to make such association (Elson & Ferguson, 2013) or that playing video games may have positive cognitive effects (Adachi & Willoughby, 2012).
Video games and negative outcomes:
The vast evidence regarding negative effects of playing video games points to aggression as an outcome. Aggression as an outcome has been examined through multiple models including the General Aggression Model, the Catalyst Model, and the Desensitization Theory. The General Aggression Model (GAM) posits that aggression develops through mechanisms such as social learning, cognitive neo-association, and excitation transfer (Anderson & Bushman, 2002). Consistent with Bandura’s (1978) model, aggression is learned through observing others in this case characters in videogames who may be depicted as heroes and rewarded for their violent actions. Researchers supporting the social learning theory argue that violent games are especially detrimental in that they do not portray the negative consequences violent behavior can lead in society (Anderson & Bushman, 2002). In the excitation transfer theory, physiological arousal associated with playing violent video games lasts longer than just the duration of the game and transfers to real world interactions (Zillmann, 1983 as cited in Elson & Ferguson, 2013).
The Catalyst Model of violent crime by Ferguson and colleagues (2008) on the other hand explains the development of aggression from a biological perspective. According to the Catalyst Model, individuals with certain biological dispositions may be impacted negatively by playing violent video games. In essence, for these individuals, the environment plays a significant role in whether or not they engage in violent behaviors.
Alternatively, increased aggressive tendencies may be explained through the desensitization theory (Funk, Bechtoldt-Baldacci, Pasold, & Baumgartner, 2004). According to the desensitization theory, repeated exposure to violent video games decreases the cognitive, emotional, and physiological responses that are commonly associated with violence (Engelhardt et al., 2011). Consequently, this theory posits that repeated exposure to violence makes us less empathetic to the suffering of others (Mullin & Linz, 1995, as cited in Engelhardt et al., 2011).
Videogames and positive outcomes:
Conversely, video games have generally been associated with positive cognitive outcomes such as improved attention, motivation (persistence to succeed), emotion management, and pro-social behavior (Granic, Lobel, & Engels, 2014). Specifically, playing video games has been associated with cognitive benefits in the areas of attention allocation, spatial resolution in visual processing, and mental rotation abilities (Granic, Lobel, & Engels, 2014). Interestingly, the above cognitive benefits were found to be comparable to formal training such as high school courses aimed at improving such skills (Granic, Lobel, & Engels, 2014).
Moreover, Larson (2000, as cited in Adachi & Willoughby, 2012) compared playing video games to organized activities such as sport teams in that involvement in both instills initiative by promoting intrinsic motivation, concentration and cognitive effort, and cumulative effort to achieve a goal. In terms of intrinsic motivation, the author argues that the motivation to play video games and persist even when the games become challenging are hone one’s intrinsic motivation. The author also suggests that the since video games often involve learning new skills and solutions to problems, learning those skills and applying them in the future improves concentration and cognitive effort. Finally, succeeding in a video game often involves effort that is extended over time in order to achieve a goal. Similarly, persistence and continued effort, which are part of gaming, are related to achievement and success beyond video game contexts (Granic, Lobel, & Engels, 2014).
Finally, playing video games has also been associated with adaptive emotion regulation strategies. Granic, Lobel & Engels (2014) posit that playing video games may promote emotion regulation strategies such as acceptance, problem solving and reappraisal in order to achieve a goal. Besides, video games often offer new challenges that elicit different emotional states that players have to navigate through. The researchers argue that these affect management skills may transfer to real life situations.
Conclusion:
The debate over whether playing video games is harmful or beneficial is far from over. While some researchers link the extended exposure to playing violent video games to increased likelihood of developing aggressive behaviors, others argue that there is a lack of evidence suggesting any negative outcomes, while yet others suggest that there may be positive outcomes. Future research may benefit from making the distinction between the type video games in order to make the results more specific. However, that may be difficult given the wide variety of genres of video games available. Perhaps, the impact of video games differ as a function of age and personality characteristics, in which case it would be worthwhile to study gaming within specific contexts and based on the results it may be at the discretion of parents or caregivers to determine the appropriateness of video games for children and adolescents.
References:
- Adachi, P. C., & Willoughby, T. (2013). Do video games promote positive youth development?. Journal Of Adolescent Research, 28(2), 155-165. doi:10.1177/0743558412464522
- Elson, M., & Ferguson, C. J. (2014). Twenty-five years of research on violence in digital games and aggression: Empirical evidence, perspectives, and a debate gone astray. European Psychologist, 19(1), 33-46. doi:10.1027/1016-9040/a000147
- Engelhardt, C. R., Bartholow, B. D., Kerr, G. T., & Bushman, B. J. (2011). This is your brain on violent video games: Neural desensitization to violence predicts increased aggression following violent video game exposure. Journal Of Experimental Social Psychology, 47(5), 1033-1036. doi:10.1016/j.jesp.2011.03.027
- Granic, I., Lobel, A., & Engels, R. E. (2014). The benefits of playing video games. American Psychologist, 69(1), 66-78. doi:10.1037/a0034857