The Effects of Videogame Violence: Desensitization

Schoolchildren today are playing video games that feature shooting monsters, aliens, humans, and various other objects. Other games feature bloody hand-to-hand combat between contestants. The true controversy is not whether or not video game violence has a negative effect on children, but whether there is a correlation between fictional violence within the game and actual violence. Throughout history, art has reflected violence, but is it valid to say that violence reflects art?  Some argue that games are violent, and contain no educational value, while others contend that they can be educational, are fine for free time activities, and that they develop good coordination skills.  What responsibility should the government and parents take?  Should video games be censored?   Are kids being desensitized to violence? These are all questions which this paper will expound upon as we come to the conclusion that mature video games are responsible for schoolchildren’s desensitization towards violence, and partially for the acts of violence exhibited by limited segments of the youth of America.  

Increasing amounts of media coverage has drawn national attention towards violent acts committed by schoolchildren and the possible causes of such behavior. From the mountains of Colorado in Columbine, to Virginia Tech, to gun arrests in local schools, the role of television programming, movies, and videogames in inciting acts of violence has become a popular and an ever increasingly addressed topic across the country.  This paper will be limited to the effects of violent video games on America’s schoolchildren.  There are those who drive the debate who contend that video games foster the psychopathic, violent behavior of schoolchildren that is plaguing American society. Those who on the other end of the debate, state that video games are merely a new entertainment medium, and are no more damaging to American schoolchildren than television, cinema, or various printed media; Arguing that the kids playing these violent video games are more than capable of distinguishing the fantasy of the video games they play in from the real world that we all live in. 

America was first introduced to video games with the release of Pong for the Atari Video Game System in 1972. By the year 1976, the video game industry, which had been nonexistent only four years previously, was booming.Many people then as now, questioned the possible effects that these games would have on children and were almost certain that they would be undesirable effects.  During the middle 1980’s the home video game console market experienced a boom with the release of the Nintendo in 1986. There were more than twenty different video game companies all releasing games in competition with each other.Driven by the competition between video game systems, and between the different studios and publishers, the advancement of technology and content of games has evolved immensely. Due to this rapid improvement of the realism of the content these video game consoles can generate, games have become more visually detailed. With the violence depicted being very life-like and graphic. Video games have been known to contain violence since their conception. Trying to determine that there is violence in a video game is very easy to answer and that is an obvious yes. Violence can be found in many games and plays a significant role in many other video games.  It is very much an integral tool of the industry.   

On the morning of April 20, 1999, two students “embarked on a shooting rampage, killing 12 students and a teacher, as well as wounding 24 others, before committing suicide. It was the fourth-deadliest school killing in United States history, after the 1927 Bath School disaster, 2007 Virginia Tech massacre and the 1966 University of Texas massacre” (Wikipedia).  The Columbine High School massacre gripped the nation in horror resulting in legislators and parents searching for some sort of tangible meaning as to why this atrocity had occurred.  The shooters (Harris and Klebold) claimed in their manifesto that they enjoyed playing the video game “Doom”, a video game that was soon deemed by as the instigation for their attack.    In actuality there were many other behaviors that Harris and Klebold both exhibited that might have better explained how they were capable of causing such an atrocity.  Both were neo-Nazis, had arrest records, were taking prescription drugs, and had been seen and noted by their school counselors for their anger and hostility.  Any or all of these may have had a pivotal role in causing them to attack their fellow students.  Since that infamous day every video game that was deemed to have immoral or inappropriate subject matter was brought to the forefront of media attention, getting blasted from every direction with incredible claims such as that video games were causing murder, depression, and suicide.As the lasting result of this attack, the heated argument of violent video games, which had until that time been restricted to the shadows of legislative debate, was abruptly thrust into the national spotlight.  

So to put aside the discussion of violence causality, and legislative oversight, another question arises: If there is sufficient evidence that some video games encourage violent behavior, then what moral responsibilities do the producers of these video carry?  And will any feeling moral responsibility ever effect any change within the video game industry?  In the past, when the role of games or movies in violence has been addressed in lawsuits, the creators of video games, music, and movies have defended their creations as protected by the first amendment.  While they may have a successful legal defense, this right to express violent and sexually suggestive images is very harmful to exceptionally receptive children who, in the worst case scenario, interpret these images as perfectly acceptable behavior.  Who may attempt to emulate the video games they play.  "We played the game by day and lived the game by night" (Readers Digest 8/05)  So said an incarcerated, and anonymous Oakland, California, gang member, saying that he and his gang associates used the Grand Theft Auto game as a kind of  training.  His gang has been linked to car thefts and murders in the Oakland area.

These developers who put forth these games which cause great harm to the community, to a large part understanding of the consequences of their actions, are thereby completely ignoring their moral responsibility.  When we compare this sense of moral responsibility to the billions of dollars of revenue generated by the video game industry, and the massive amount of money in their advertising budgets, it makes for an unbalanced and ultimately hopeless ratio.  The video game industry has climbed close to the top of the entertainment mountain.  In 2006, it surpassed the music industry in sales to the tune of 7.4 billion dollars (ESA).  In today’s free enterprise society, where the consumer is looking for the best at the lowest price, the competition causes game developers to think of new and creative ways of separating customers from their cash. Real people make livings creating these video games, and the competition in this industry is stiff; by no means is it an easy market.  Violence sells and as long as game developers take exploit this, they will keep producing violent products.  Who are thereby continuously pushing the violence envelope further and further. 

Is censoring video games a viable solution?  Legislators and other opponents of violence in video games do not necessarily object to the games themselves, they object to the violence within the game. Their objections can all be traced to the simple thought process: “Video games are violent, violence is bad, and so video games must also be bad”.   Video game publishers have put forward the argument that if they were told to stop the production of certain games, it would be like stopping a newspaper from printing certain stories, a trespass on their 1^st Amendment rights.  In principle, I agree with this line of reasoning. And it seems Congress has too.  It has rather than ban violent video games it has chosen to try and stop the marketing and distribution of these violent games to younger game players.  The game companies’ advertising has been curtailed and with advertising for some games limited to times of the day when children will not be the largest viewing demographic.  Congress has also taken steps to prevent mature rated video games from being sold to inappropriate audiences. Congressional bills have been presented to the respective houses that entail strict enforcement of the rating system for all video games. Such bills feature severe penalties that range from fines to jail time for the vending of a mature game to underage consumers.

Another outcome of these attempts at legislative control was that congress ordered the IDSA to develop a universal method to rate games based on their content. As a result the Electronic Standards Rating Board, (ESRB), was created.  The ESRB is now charged with receiving and rating every video game released on any game system. The standards are displayed to the consumers through a simple range of letters.  The games which most politicians and parental groups are worried about are those rated “M” for Mature. These were made for an audience of gamers eighteen and over. Games rating “T” for Teen are intended for gamers over the age of thirteen. “E” stands for everyone.  In 2005, only fourteen percent of video games published are rated M (mature) for adults aged eighteen and over (ESA 1).  

To draw any substantial conclusions about the positive or negative effects of video games on schoolchildren, the many different types of games that are played must be taken into account. Are there any “good” games out there designed for schoolchildren? Yes, there are many educational and entertaining games that “fulfill a need for adventure and fantasy…games such as these are clever, fun and gets kids to think creativity” (Sider 3).  There are many other options when buying video games for children. Sports games, educational based adventure games, and games such as Mario, plus other games in the same genre, are all quality violence-free video games that can entertain any gamer.

It seems that everyone has his or her own opinion, on this contentious issue. There are video games out there that are very violent and that involve killing people or participating in other violent activities. These video games are properly rated M (mature) which, we have established, only allows consumers over the age of eighteen to purchase.  Because of the fact that our society introduces violence to youngsters in a variety of ways and other forms of entertainment (e.g. movies, news, wrestling, sports), it is not unreasonable to argue that violent video games should be allowed to continued to be developed and sold. As much as society collectively does not agree with violence, it has been, and will always be a part of this fallen world.  Violence may be a part of human nature, but it is needless and wrong to expose ourselves to video games and entertainment that appeal to our inner caveman.   Do I agree that violent video games have caused schoolchildren to become increasingly violent?  The answer would have to be a qualified yes.   So to reiterate, the only way I would agree with the censorship of violent video games would be if video games were the only source for schoolchildren to be exposed to this level of violence, but it is not.   It is therefore unreasonable to censor video games or place a disproportionate amount of blame on them.  Video games should be carefully tolerated and regulated like many other vices within our society. 

To conclude, the most effective change would be to stop selling mature games to those who are not mature. The amount of violence in games would and should not be an issue. Even if it cannot be established that video game violence directly causes violence in children, it should not even be an issue.  Because kids how no business playing violent games. It should be up to the gaming industry to make sure that violent games are not available to those under eighteen.  What the government should do is prosecute the sales of mature games to minor and stop quibbling about the content of the games. Further, game creators and distributors ought to be challenged to establish tighter controls over the production of violent games and create full-proof methods of distribution to prevent of these video games from falling into the hands of schoolchildren.

Sensationalized and scrutinized by the media, video games are receiving a disproportionate amount of the blame for violence within our schools.  Where video games are not receiving of the enough blame, is for creating a couple of generations of increasingly lazy, obese, and less assertive students.  There are many other negative consequences of video game playing.  One of the main disadvantages of video games is their time consumption. Surveys show that a typical schoolchild spends about 10 hours a week playing video games.  Many parents surveyed by the ESRB (Entertainment Software Rating Board) reported that their children’s basic responsibilities around the house were sometimes left undone because of video game play. Video games also have a tendency to interfere with school work, and other social activities.  Time is valuable, and the time “wasted” on video games could be better spent on other, more important activities.  Another factor to consider is that the time spent sitting and not exercising can lead to obesity, more time playing video games means less time getting outside and exercising. Another medical disadvantage is that some children with exposed to prolong bouts of game playing experience seizures. Another disadvantage to consider is the amount of financial resources that videos can demand.  The average price for a current video game system is about $400 (Average: XBOX 360, Wii, and Playstation 3). This price is only for the system.  Purchasing new titles for these next generation consoles typically sets the consumer back sixty dollars; which is easily beyond the purchasing power of most schoolchildren.  Inevitably parents end up paying for them (It has been estimated that 80% of all video game purchases were facilitated by an adult).  There are also multiple optional accessories that can be purchased to accompany that new video game console.  The playing of video games is a particularly expensive and addictive, bad-habit. 

There is a perceived trend among video game opponents that our schoolchildren are becoming increasingly violent, and this has corresponded with the rise of video games. Many analysts and talking heads believe that children will have incorporated such a high level of violence into their lives that violent behavior will become second nature to them.  Lt Col David Grossman, realized that the methods our armed forces use to teach soldiers to kill on the battlefield are the same methods our kids are unassumably learning from video games as they partake in violence. Grossman, a former psychology professor at West Point, contends that the entertainment industry is teaching our children to kill. 

Historians have learned that in battles of the past, the rate of killing during face-to-face combat was surprisingly low. It wasn’t until after WWII that a team of researchers, led by S.L.A. Marshall, a US Army Brigadier General, who asked individual soldiers what their actions where in the heat of battle. Their conclusion:  that out of one hundred people, as few as 15-20 men “would take any part with their weapons.” (On Killing 15). Grossman states, “From the military perspective, a 15 percent firing rate among riflemen is like a 15 percent literacy rate among librarians” (Trained 9).

It was then revealed that under normal circumstances we do not kill one another. When we are overwhelmed with emotion, such as anger or fear, our forebrain experiences vasoconstriction (the narrowing of the blood vessels which effectively shuts down the forebrain), causing the midbrain to take over. They determined that it was here that a hard-wired resistance to killing others exists.  It was at this point the arm set out to develop ways to overcome it is innate aversion to killing one another. And overcome it they did. By the Korean War the killing rate, so to say, of our soldiers rose to about 55% and by the Vietnam War, over 90% fired their weapons to kill.

The method the army developed to train young men to overcome this natural aversion to killing was simple: Desensitization and brutalization.  This plan utilized the Psychological methods of: Classical Conditioning, Operant Conditioning, and role modeling. Classical conditioning is defined as: An originally neutral stimulus the becomes associated with a particular physiological or emotional response that the stimulus did not originally produce (  ). When used in such a manner conditioning can be a subtle but powerful instrument that teaches us to accept killing.  Or to describe what is happening to our schoolchildren: our kids are watching vivid pictures of violence and human suffering every day they have it drilled in, and they have learned to associate it with other positive memories.  Memories such as time spent with their friends, their favorite food, and candy from the movie theatres.  Violence has then become associated with pleasure. According to Grossman, commenting on the untamed distribution of violent media, “if you are conditioned to overcome these midbrain inhibitions, then you are a walking time bomb, a pseudo-sociopath, just waiting for the random factors of social interaction and forebrain rationalization to put you in the wrong place at the wrong time” (Conditioning 2).

In our TV shows, movies, and video game entertainment not a day goes by that kids see somebody brutalized, shot, stabbed, raped or murdered. Everyday this is repeated over and over and until we become desensitized to the violence.  Grossman terms this phenomenon as AVIDS: Acquired Violence Immune Deficiency Syndrome. He draws similarities AVIDS and AIDS. Just as AIDS itself is not what you die from, what occurs is that it destroys your immune system which allows an otherwise non-fatal diseases to kill you.   In the same sense, video game violence itself will not push you over the edge so to speak - it destroys the built in violence immune system and conditions you to derive pleasure from violence.  This widespread desensitization of our schoolchildren is the most harmful effect that violent video games have had upon our society.

So have we, as a society, culturally accepted this desensitization?  As time and technology advance, the different mediums in which media is being conveyed, has become tremendously diversified.  As is in the case of video games, its effects have become increasingly harmful to society’s well-being. These video games are bombarding our schoolchildren from every direction with images and sounds that glorify violence. This increasing exposure to violent images has lead people throughout the country to conclude that society’s younger generations are becoming desensitized to this violence. If one surveys the current level of comfort that we have permitted these video games, it is safe to say that this violent exposure has become socially accepted.  This has occurred in large part due to the gradual nature in which these video violent games have been introduced.  These games have become a fixed part of modern society. The video game industry is booming.  New consoles have been released and consumers are feverishly buying games for them. “The gaming industry has never been stronger. We have no reason to hide. We, as an industry, are ready for anything the media or government can dish out,” said IDSA President Doug Lowe Stein (McNamara, 43).

The level to which violence has become socially accepted has reached an alarming. To any sensible adult, the presence of violence in virtually all mediums of entertainment is blatantly obvious. Have we reached a point as a society, where violence itself is the actual source of entertainment? Violence as entertainment dates back centuries. Everyone has read or has heard stories about the Roman gladiators.  Who in ancient Rome, battled to the death in front of thousands of bloodthirsty spectators.  Spectators who were entertained by the senseless violence of the slaughtering other humans and animals.

Presently it seems that society is about to come full circle to that point, to a place where society will be able to perceive violence as entertainment, just as the ancient Romans were entertained by the gladiators. As time progresses and society evolves, violence will continue to be a topic of great debate. Despite all the differing stances on violence in video games, it is absurd to blame such complex social issues on just the entire video game industry, especially when there are so many other factors sculpting society’s younger generations. Factors including: lack of parental involvement, limited economical opportunities, insufficient education, peer-pressure, etc... People tend to greatly oversimplify this complex issue. From cartoons like South Park, to video games like Grand Theft Auto, to plays by Shakespeare; we have all been exposed to a vast amount of violence. After considering this, it is a wonder we all are not completely desensitized to violence by now. "Things that everyone notices, like the Janet Jackson Super Bowl incident, tend to be overreactions to societal transformations that have already happened. But things that sneak in under the radar, deceptive events that not everyone pays attention to, can be unsettling signposts leading to unsavory change" (Turan).    All of America is not going around brandishing guns, and we can be certain that the complexity of the issue is far beyond my powers of description.   But what unsavory changes lay ahead?