Warning: Rambling post about violent game effects

“Ultimately, media violence is only one part of the puzzle—neither the largest nor the smallest—but an important part. Unlike other risk factors for aggression, however, this one is fairly simple to reduce.”
~ Craig Anderson and Douglas Gentile (2009)

My only previous experience with academic videogame discussion was a semester-long project that investigated the effects of violent videogames on (who else?) children. The class was a requirement for my major (Public Relations), far more focused on teaching us young, burgeoning mass communicators the value of quantitative and qualitative analysis than it was actually a rigorous analysis of videogame effects. I used the above quote after my table of contents as a sort of overarching statement that I thought gelled with the gist of my 30 page portfolio. I still agree with most of the first sentence in that paragraph.

I no longer agree with the second sentence, although I’m not sure I ever did. Here’s why: I doubt researchers can break influence down into quantifiable, additive components. To me, influence does not work that way. I think other people would disagree, and maybe they’re right, but from my perspective, any sort of attempt to quantify influence will be imperfect to the point of being meaningless*. Influence is an abstract combination of factors, one which affects different people in different ways at different times depending on different moods; influence isn’t some sort of bar graph that proves Doom is 38% responsible for the Columbine shootings.

I think I understand Anderson and Gentile’s basic argument. Violent videogames serve little purpose, and although they are not the most important ingredient in fomenting aggression, they are an easy one to reduce. Just ban the games. I see a few problems with this argument. The fact that such a minute percentage of people who play these games commit horrific crimes suggests that the influence of the games is minor, and that’s being very charitable to Anderson and Gentile. Others Anderson and Gentile opponents might prefer the term negligible. And if millions of people enjoy a game, because a few lunatics commit terrible acts in which the games have no definitive role, the games should be banned? That seems misguided. Finally, and this is an irritating argument, but a relevant one nonetheless: the games won’t be banned. Short of a spate of murdering sprees where the perpetrators leave signed, dated and notarized letters saying, “Yes, I did it, and Halo gave me the idea and taught me how,” these games aren’t going to be banned. I’m not sure how much of a lobbying presence major game retailers have in Washington, D.C., but you’d better believe that if Congress even mentions banning Call of Duty or Medal of Honor, DLA Piper’s phones will be ringing off the hook. And Congress probably wouldn’t get reelected, either.

To wrap up, the combination of factors that creates a mass murderer (which is what we’re really worried about) is irreducibly complex. I’d cite family, friends, personal tendencies and mental health as far more important factors than videogame play, and that’s just off the top of my head. So my question is: do people think it’s possible to measure games for their impact on aggressive behavior? The only studies I can imagine, which may have been performed, are longitudinal studies on people of various ages that account for the above factors and other significant** variables, too. Do other people know of such studies? Do other people think there is a better, different way? ‘Cuz I really don’t know.



* Yes, that’s easy for me to say as an aloof, slacking college student who has no affection for or stake in violent videogame research. Were I a researcher whose livelihood depended on this research, or a person whose life had been altered by events that could be connected to videogames, I might feel different. But then, that wouldn’t make me any more objective, would it?

** So, then, what is a “significant” factor? Maybe we should find some lawyers…