Video Games: A Cause of Violence and Aggression

Grace Shin
There is a huge hype surrounding the launch of every new game system - Game Cube, XBox, and Sony Playstation 2 being just few of the latest. Affecting children age 4 all the way to 45 year-old adults, these video games have called for concern in our society regarding issues such as addiction, depression, and even aggression related to the playing of video games. A recent study of children in their early teens found that almost a third played video games daily, and that 7% played for at least 30 hours a week. (1) What is more, some of these games being played like Mortal Combat, Marvel Vs. Capcom, and Doom are very interactive in the violence of slaughtering the opponent. The video game industries even put signs like "Real-life violence" and "Violence level - not recommended for children under age of 12" on their box covers, arcade fronts, and even on the game CDs themselves. In the modern popular game Goldeneye 007 bad guys no longer disappear in a cloud of smoke when killed. Instead they perform an elaborate maneuver when killed. For example, those shot in the neck fall to their knees and then face while clutching at their throats. Other games such as Unreal Tournament and Half-Life are gorier. In these games when characters get shot a large spray of blood covers the walls and floor near the character, and on the occasions when explosives are used, the characters burst into small but recognizable body parts. In spite of the violence, the violent video games are also the more popular games on the market. (2) When video games first came out, indeed they were addictive... however, there seems to be a strong correlation now between the violent nature of games these days and the aggressive tendencies in game players. On April 20, 1999, Eric Harris and Dylan Klebold launched an assault on Columbine High School in Littleton, Colorado, murdering 13 and wounding 23 before turning the guns on themselves. Although nothing is for certain as to why these boys did what they did, we do know that Harris and Klebold both enjoyed playing the bloody, shoot-'em-up video game Doom, a game licensed by the U.S. military to train soldiers to effectively kill. The Simon Wiesenthal Center, which tracks Internet hate groups, found in its archives a copy of Harris' web site with a version of Doom. He had customized it so that there were two shooters, each with extra weapons and unlimited ammunition, and the other people in the game could not fight back. For a class project, Harris and Klebold made a videotape that was similar to their customized version of Doom. In the video, Harris and Klebold were dressed in trench coats, carried guns, and killed school athletes. They acted out their videotaped performance in real life less than a year later... (3) Everyone deals with stress and frustrations differently. However when action is taken upon the frustration and stress, and the action is taken out in anger and aggression, the results may be very harmful to both the aggressor and the person being aggressed against, mentally, emotionally, and even physically. Aggression is action, i.e. attacking someone or a group with an intent to harm someone. It can be a verbal attack--insults, threats, sarcasm, or attributing nasty motives to them--or a physical punishment or restriction. Direct behavioral signs include being overly critical, fault finding, name-calling, accusing someone of having immoral or despicable traits or motives, nagging, whining, sarcasm, prejudice, and/or flashes of temper. (4) The crime and abuse rate in the United States has soared in the past decade. More and more children suffer from and are being treated for anger management than ever before. Now, one can't help but to wonder if these violent video games are even playing a slight part in the current statistics. I believe they do. Calvert and Tan (5) compared the effects of playing versus observing violent video games on young adults' arousal levels, hostile feelings, and aggressive thoughts. Results indicated that college students who had played a violent virtual reality game had a higher heart rate, reported more dizziness and nausea, and exhibited more aggressive thoughts in a posttest than those who had played a nonviolent game do. A study by Irwin and Gross (6) sought to identify effects of playing an "aggressive" versus "nonaggressive" video game on second-

grade boys identified as impulsive or reflective. Boys who had played the aggressive game, compared to those who had played the nonaggressive game, displayed more verbal and physical aggression to inanimate objects and playmates during a subsequent free play session. Moreover, these differences were not related to the boys' impulsive or reflective traits. Thirdly, Kirsh (7) also investigated the effects of playing a violent versus a nonviolent video game. After playing these games, third- and fourth-graders were asked questions about a hypothetical story. On three of six questions, the children who had played the violent game responded more negatively about the harmful actions of a story character than did the other children. These results suggest that playing violent video games may make children more likely to attribute hostile intentions to others. In another study by Karen E. Dill, Ph.D. & Craig A. Anderson, Ph.D., violent video games were considered to be more harmful in increasing aggression than violent movies or television shows due to their interactive and engrossing nature. (8) The two studies showed that aggressive young men were especially vulnerable to violent games and that even brief exposure to violent games can temporarily increase aggressive behavior in all types of participants. The first study was conducted with 227 college students with aggressive behavior records in the past and who completed a measure of trait aggressiveness. They were also reported to have habits of playing video games. It was found that students, who reported playing more violent video games in junior and high school, engaged in more aggressive behavior. In addition, the time spent playing video games in the past were associated with lower academic grades in college, which is a source of frustration for many students, a potential cause for anger and aggression as discussed in the previous paragraph. In the second study, 210 college students were allowed to play Wolfenstein 3D, an extremely violent game, or Myst, a nonviolent game. After a short time, it was found that the students who played the violent game punished an opponent for a longer period of time compared to the students who played the non violent game. Dr. Anderson concluded by saying, "Violent video games provide a forum for learning and practicing aggressive solutions to conflict situations. It the short run, playing a violent video game appears to affect aggression by priming aggressive thoughts." Despite the fact that this study was for a short term effect, longer term effects are likely to be possible as the player learns and practices new aggressionrelated scripts that can become more and more accessible for the real-life conflict that may arise. (9) The U.S. Surgeon General C. Everett Koop once claimed that arcade and home video games are among the top three causes of family. Although there have been studies that have found video game violence to have little negative effects on their players, there are also many studies that have found a positive correlation between negative behavior, such as aggression, and video and computer game violence. Thus, in order to totally assess the effects of game violence on its users, the limiting conditions under which there are effects must be taken into account, which include age, gender, and class/level of education. (10) However, violent games do affect children, as the studies show, especially early teens, and I feel that there needs to be a stricter regulation regarding the availability of these games to young children.

Effects of Video Games on Aggressive Thoughts and Behaviors During Development

Thomas A. Kooijmans Rochester Institute of Technology In the past 30 years, video games have had a major impact on how people spend their leisure time. The first generation of video games were nothing more than simple geometric shapes, one or more of which could be controlled by the game player. With the release of the Nintendo Entertainment System in the 1980s and Sony's Playstation in the 1990s came new generations of games, with better graphics and more capabilities. Until the recent resurgence in interest in video games in the past decade, research on the topic was minimal. The greatest recent contribution has been Anderson and Bushman's (2002) general aggression model (GAM), which explains both the development of aggression and individual differences in susceptibility to the influence of violent video games. Because of the many biological and physical changes that occur during puberty, exposure to violent games should affect the processes that operate within the GAM. In order to control the effects of video game violence, one must first understand the effect it has on the brain, including in the areas of aggression and hostility. In the past 30 years, video games have had a major impact on how people spend their leisure time. The first generation of video games were nothing more than simple geometric shapes, one or more of which could be controlled by the game player. Each generation of games always uses the newest technologies available, leading to more impressive graphics and realism. Along with these new technologies come more realistic violent acts and situations. Also with each new generation of video games, people are spending more time and money on them. In this article the term video games will be used to define any interactive multimedia in which the human game player has control over the main "character" in a simulated game world. This can include all types of video games such as those played on arcade machines (like the Tekken series), home consoles (like Sony's Playstation), hand-held consoles (like Nintendo's Gameboy) and personal computers (like the Doom series). The video game industry has grown by leaps and bounds since it's inception in the 1970s. One of the industry's giants, Nintendo, sold an average of three games every second from 1983 to 1995. That adds up to over one billion games. That is equal to one game for every teenager on earth, or enough games that, laid end to end, scan the entire equator two and a half times ("Nintendo sells one billionth game," 1995). An industry war has begun to see who can build the newest, fastest, most popular game. The explosion of the video game industry in the past decade has had many people questioning the content of the games being released. The main concern is that of violence and violent acts within the games. The newest generation of games is so realistic that the line between "simulations" and video games has greatly been blurred. They are so realistic that the United States government has even released a game, entitled America's Army, to help train the next generation of military specialists. In the late 1990's a large number of high-school shootings were blamed on violent video games, the most

devastating being the shooting at Columbine High School in Colorado in 1999. These shootings raise a valid concern that violent video games may be affecting the aggression of children and developing adolescents. The term aggression is very general and can refer to and influence a large number of personality traits and behaviors. Connor, Steingard, Cunningham, Anderson, and Meloni (2004) defined two specific types of aggression. Reactive aggression is an angry, defensive response to a threat or frustration. An example of this would be getting revenge on someone that has done you wrong. Proactive aggression is a deliberate behavior that is controlled by external reinforcements and is usually a means of reaching a desired goal. An example of this type would be robbing a bank to get money. There have yet to be any studies that take into account these two specific types, but most studies in the past have focused on both in some way.

A Brief History of Violence in Video Games

Video games made their first appearance in the early 1970s. The first generation of games used simple shapes and had minimal interaction. The first game, Pong, attempted to simulate ping pong using two rectangle's as paddles, and a small square as the ball. The paddles could be controlled by a human player. This game displayed no violent acts or situations though. The first of popular games to be considered violent was Pac Man. This game consisted of a small circle with a mouth that tried to eat pills and destroy ghosts. Although this hardly seems violent by today's standards, it was one of the first games to involve destruction of any kind. With the release of the Nintendo Entertainment System in the 1980s and Sony's Playstation in the 1990s came new generations of games, with better graphics and more capabilities. Game developers were no longer as limited by their media, and tried to simulate reality as best as possible. New innovations in technology meant more realistic violence and gore. All these new capabilities meant developers could focus more on details also. One example is the game Soldier of Fortune, released in 2000 for the personal computer. In this game each character has 26 "kill zones," or areas that the character can be hit by a bullet (Gentile, Lynch, Linder, & Walsh, 2004). The game also employs a first-person perspective, making it seem as though the player is seeing through the eyes of the in-game character.

Past Research
Until the recent resurgence in interest in video games in the past decade, research on the topic was minimal. There were few correlations found, and several had conflicting results. There were three studies which used self report data. Dominick (1984) found that the amount of video games played had a positive correlation with one of three measures of aggression among tenth and eleventh grade boys. However, Gibb, Bailey, Lambirth, and Wilson (1983) found no relation in a larger study of 12-34 year olds. Another study found a correlation between use of arcade games and teachers' ratings of aggressiveness (Lin & Leper, 1987). Due to the conflicting results of these studies, no conclusive correlations could be drawn. Most data seemed to show a positive correlation between videogame play and aggression, yet Gibb et al.'s (1983) study showed otherwise. There were few experimental studies done on the topic at this time also. Cooper and Mackie (1986) found fifth grade girls to be more aggressive in one of two measures when playing a violent game versus a non-violent game. This data however conflicted with Graybill's (1987) study of second though sixth graders in which he found no greater aggression when playing a violent versus non-violent game. Once again, due to the conflicting results, no conclusive evidence could be drawn to help support that aggression and videogame play are related. Unfortunately these early studies were not much help in determining a relationship between aggression and video games. These experimenters helped to show that there was a relationship, but there was not enough evidence to prove it strongly in either direction. With the resurgence of interest in violent video games in the past decade, this has changed. This resurgence has been due to a number of factors, but the greatest of which

has been the large number of high school shootings that have been blamed on violence in the public media. There were over a dozen incidents of violence, most involving death, that have been blamed on violent video games between 1997 and 2003. These ranged from beating deaths to shooting sprees to sniper shootings, and were not limited to the United States. Until this resurgence, research on the subject of video games was highly lacking. Considering the amount of time young children and adolescents spend playing them, much more research is needed. Recent contributions have given us a much clearer understanding of the relationship between aggression and video games. They have shown that the relationship may be much more complex than originally thought. The greatest contribution in recent years has been Anderson and Bushman's (2002) general aggression model (GAM).

The General Aggression Model

The GAM attempts to explain both the development of aggression and individual differences in susceptibility to the influence of violent video games. According to the GAM, both situational and personological variables interact to affect a person's internal state (Anderson & Bushman 2002). The internal state contains cognitions (thoughts), affects (feelings) and arousals (physical). All three of these items influence each other, and each has and effect on an individual's interpretation of an aggressive act. Once the brain's interpretation is complete, decision-making processes start to occur. The GAM also states that violent video games have both short term and long term effects. In the short tem, the games are a situational variable, causing an increase in aggressive cognitions, affects and arousal. The long term effects are just hypothesis, as insufficient research has been done to test its effect's. This is due to the fact that research on this topic is fairly new, so no longitudinal data is yet available. Anderson and Bushman (2002) hypothesized that violent video games influence behavior by promoting aggressive beliefs and attitudes, thus creating aggressive schema, aggressive behavioral scripts, and aggressive expectations. They also claim that it desensitizes individuals to aggression. This can be seen on a large scale if one looks at the progression of violence in video games over the past 20 years. When Super Mario Bros. was first released in the 1980s, it was considered a violent game. Even though the game was highly fictitious and featured a very cartoon-like look, the main character broke blocks and attempted to destroy his enemies by jumping on their heads. The Super Mario Bros series hardly seems violent by today's standards. Recent games such as Mortal Kombat feature realistic graphics and controls, but also extreme blood and gore. In this game you fight a human-like opponent in attempt to wear him down. The match is finished with a "Fatality," a move which kills your opponent in a very graphic fashion. Common "Fatalities" include burning opponents alive, cutting their heads off, and even ripping out their spinal cord using the skull. Games like this have greatly affected today's standards of a violent game. The GAM helped to show how complicated of an issue the relationship between violence, video game, and aggression really is. Gentile et al. (2004) claim it has an additive effect. This means that those whom already are high in certain factors, mainly hostility, are much more at risk to become more aggressive due to influence by violent video games.

Those subjects who are rated as low in hostility have been found to have almost no affect on their aggression levels when influenced by playing violent video games. Formulation of the GAM greatly helps us in understanding this complex relationship between aggression and violent games. Kirsch (2003) was the first to apply the GAM specifically to adolescents. Because of the large amount of biological and physical changes that occur during puberty, exposure to violent games should affect the processes that operate within the GAM. These processes are already in place at adolescence, but during this time they are still influenced by current environments (Kirsch 2003). During adolescence there is a general increase in the aggression (Lindemann, Harakka, & Keltikangas-Jaervinen, 1997). This aggression combined with the exposure to violent media will reinforce and increase aggressive cognitions, affects and arousal. This interaction has a negative affect on the internal state, leading to increased aggression. The effects of this exposure are greater during early adolescence than middle and later adolescence. This is because the amount of physiological arousal is greatest during this time (Spear, 2000).

Considerations for Future Research

Considering the popularity of video games much more research needs to be done on this issue. Chambers and Ascione (1987) report that 100% of elementary and high school students surveyed had played video games at least once. That was more than 15 years ago. This is an obvious indicator that video games have entered the mainstream media, and that more research needs to be done on the effects of video games on adolescence. The majority of research thus far has been on the negative effects of video games, mostly due to the violence contained within. But the exact relationship is still undetermined, so research must continue. However, there are also many who hypothesize that video games can have a positive effect on youth, and believe that it is worth time and effort to explore these possibilities. Following are a few areas of research this author believes our time is best spent:

Therapy
Although the majority of video games are violent in nature, there are many emerging that take an intellectual standpoint. These include puzzle games such as the wildly popular Tetris. These types of games stimulate the mind by presenting challenges and puzzles to the player rather than enemies and worlds. Many play them just to keep the mind active and alert. This type of game-play has brought about the idea that video games can be used as a form of therapy. Some of them are relaxing and soothing, and they can be specifically altered to meet an individual patient's needs. A video game can be created to help a specific type of person, whether it is to help connect certain memory cells in the brain, or just help stimulate brain activity in general. Due to the programmatic nature in which video games are created, their possibilities of creation are endless. Gardner (1991) attempted the first research on this issue. He successfully used video games as a form of psychotherapy in children. This success has stimulated much research on this issue, but mostly dealing with mentally-ill or brain-damaged patients.

Eye-Hand Coordination
Playing many of the modern video games requires some sort of skill. The player is required to do quite a bit to "win." There are many things going on in the game at once. For example, the character may be running and shooting at the same time. This requires the real-world player to keep track of the position of the character, where he/she is heading, their speed, where the gun is aiming, if the gunfire is hitting the enemy, and so on. All these factors need to be taken into account, and then the player must then coordinate the brain's interpretation and reaction with the movement in their hands and fingertips. This process requires a great deal of eye-hand coordination and visual-spatial ability to be successful. A relationship has been shown between increased videogame playing and improvements to eye-hand coordination, as well as manual dexterity, and reaction time (Drew & Waters, 1986). Some true experiments would greatly help to support this claim.

Simulations

A simulation is interactive multimedia used to try to simulate some real world phenomenon. Many video games are nothing more than simulations. They are very closely related, and much research that refers to simulations could most likely apply to video games as well. The most well known simulations are flight simulators, which attempt to mimic the reality of flying a plane. All of the controls, including airspeed, wing angles, altimeter, and so on, are displayed for the player, as well as a visual representation of the world, and are updated in real time. For many years large corporations have used simulations to help train and better their employees. However, simulations have so much more possibilities. The United States government has released a game entitled America's Army, which simulates a real war-time experience. The government hopes to use it to help train the next generation of recruits. Another use for simulations is to mimic the effects of nature. Many modern games use particle systems, thousands of tiny particles in three-dimensional space, which mimic natural phenomena such as rain, fire and smoke. Another popular use is to simulate flocking birds and schooling fish. An excellent example of this is seen in Pixar's Finding Nemo. With deeper research, these simulations can give us a better understanding of our world and our selves.

Conclusion
The advancement of video game research in the past decade has greatly helped our understanding of its effects on development. Unfortunately though, more research is still needed. The video game industry has grown to the proportions of the movie industry, and shows no sign of stopping. With each generation of games come more realistic graphics, more violence, bigger world, and more possibilities. In order to fully control the effect that it has on our children, we must first better understand the effect it has on the personality and behaviors, and not just in the areas of aggression and hostility. As we reach this understanding hopefully developers can create games which will help our youth, expand their minds, and shy away from the current trend of violence in video games.

Are We Talking About the Same Violence?

Joel D. Collinson Rochester Institute of Technology Koojimans determined that the Pac Man and Super Mario Brothers video games were violent. Although having said that, he indicated that they were not violent by today's standards. He suggested that these games be termed "violent" because they involved the obvious destruction of objects through physical means of smashing, punching, eating, and so on. Many people will remember that the Pac Man game is simply a chase-or-flight game in which the main character, Pac Man, gobbled up "pills" and avoided ghosts until it ate a special treat that would give it a temporary confidence boost to chase down the ghosts and swallow them whole. Now, if those who have played this game were asked whether it was violent, most of them would probably answer that it was a fun game where their adrenaline would reach the peak when some evil ghost caught up behind Pac Man. The question would be: how could the game be termed violent when its players exclaimed that it was an awesome and fun game? Koojimans probably only meant to label those games violent to create a relation between video game violence and aggression. This raises a new question: what exactly is the definition of violence in video games? This could be a topic for future research, because Koojimans provided many variations to the meaning of the word violence, and each variation could be responsible for different effects on aggression or could have no effect at all. All of that confirms Koojimans' admission that the interrelation between video game violence and aggression is indeed complex. Back to the question: How could a video game be termed violent when players exclaim that it is an awesome and fun game? The underlying reason I ask this question is to confirm the possibility that the players were already desensitized to the effects of violence in video games. There is also the possibility, however, that the video games are so much fun that the concept of violence just simply disappears from players' minds. Clearly, there could be a fine line between claiming that chasing a ghost is an indication

of violence and claiming that the game is so much fun that it is not violent at all. Perception may have something to do with it. Yes, perception has a lot to do with naming which gave is labeled violent and which is not. A game could be seen as very violent for someone who comes from an earlier generation, whereas it could be seen as fun for someone like an extreme gamer. Perception could be responsible for the debate as to why some gamers become aggressive and others do not after playing a violent video game. Once again, perception could be a topic for future research. I noted one obvious flaw in the explanation for how a violent video game could have a negative effect on gamers. The results Kooijmanns cited from studies on the effect of violence in video games on aggressiveness were correlational in nature. In other words, they did not establish a causal relation between violence and aggressiveness. It is possible that gamers play violent games because they already have personalities that are hostile or aggressive. Or it could be the other way around, in that gamers become more aggressive as they play more violent games. Consequently, it would be inappropriate to wave a gigantic flag saying that violence in video games causes aggression or hostility. Clearly, a variable that we could not measure or imagine could always be responsible for the increase in aggressive behavior. As Kooijmans said, longitudinal studies on effects of violence on aggressive behavior have not concluded, and as long that is true, there is no way to determine whether violent content in video games leads to increased aggressive behavior. Kooijmans mentioned that exposure to violent media reinforces and increases aggressive tendencies that already exist in an adolescent. How is that possible? One could argue that adolescents discover a way to spill out their rough emotions through aggressive behavior as a mechanism to alleviate those emotions. Yet there is still the question of cause-andeffect directionality. An angry adolescent may come to like violent media with its negative effects. Violent media could reinforce and increase aggressive behavior, but it may be the anger that led the adolescent to like violent media. The major limitation of Kooijmans' argument is the lack of demonstrated causality between violent content in video games and aggressive or hostile behavior. This limitation is deepened by confusion over the definition of violence. Other than that, Kooijmans helped ongoing research on video game violence to stand out by calling for more research.

Video Game Violence and the Emerging Psychopath

Sean P. Neubert Rochester Institute of Technology This paper investigated the correlations between video game exposure during puberty and aggressiveness. The primary focus of this investigation was the general aggression model (Anderson & Bushman, 2002). I will argue that aggressive and violent behavior are related to antisocial personality disorder. Antisocial personality disorder is characterized by impulsivity and indifference to the suffering of others. Aggressive behavior is quite frequent among those with antisocial personality. There are two theories regarding the origin of these behaviors, one that claims that it has a biological basis and one that claims that it is learned socially. It is possible that such behavior is related to violent video game usage. The general aggression model claims that violent video games desensitize people to aggression. A majority of violent video games provide as simulation dangerous stimuli, such as monsters or hostile enemies with weapons. Psychopaths often do not show the same fear response to threatening stimuli (this is a physiological or biological difference). Continually playing games in which the only positive outcome is the violent demise of enemies could positively reinforce antisocial behavior and perhaps even cause such a physiological difference over time. Some researchers have claimed that exposure to antisocial behavior can be a cause of antisocial behavior in others (Levenson, Kiehl, & Fitzpatrick, 1995). So, are the causes of these behaviors biological or learned? Individuals high in hostility are more likely to become aggressive when exposured to violent video games, whereas individuals low in hostility are less likely to become aggressive when exposed (Gentile, Lynch, Linder, & Walsh, 2004). This may lend some insight into the differing theories on the causes of antisocial behavior. Individuals high in hostility have a biological predisposition toward antisocial behavior and, under given circumstances, will learn these behaviors. Thomas A. Kooijmans's "Effects of Video Games on Aggressive Thoughts and Behaviors During Development" provides valuable insight regarding the correlation between video game violence and aggressive behavior. The author furnished an excellent overview of this topic, looking at past research and present endeavors. This is undoubtedly a socially relevant and exciting field, and future research is needed. Peer Commentary

Positive Effects of Video Games on Development

Noah J. Stupak Rochester Institute of Technology The idea that video games have a detrimental effect on children who play them is widely contested. Though providing excellent coverage of these effects, Kooijmans' "Effects of Video Games on Aggressive Thoughts and Behaviors During Development" leaves out many of the positive aspects of video games. The paper does mention their use for therapy, hand-eye coordination training, and simulations, but it does not cover any actual developmental effects. Video games teach many skills to the developing child. Examples of these skills include problem-solving abilities, perseverence, pattern recognition, hypothesis testing, estimating skills, inductive reasoning, resource management, logistics, mapping, memory, quick thinking, and reasoned judgments (Sheff, 1994). Many of these skills are abstract and require higher-level thinking, which schools do not often teach children. By including a way to choose one's own level of difficulty in most, if not all, video games, one can tailor the degree of intricacy of the tasks in the game to meet one's own skills. After the tasks are completed at an easy level, a child will feel motivated to attempt a higher degree of difficulty. By slowly ramping up the difficulty, the child is able to accomplish goals and learn while increasing his or her self-efficacy. Although the typical video game child is seen as a loner and anti-social, video games may very well teach the child social skills. If the parents are attentive of thier child, video games can be a good bonding activity. Most likely the child will be more proficient at the game than the parent, which allows the child to teach the parents for once. This reversal of roles allows the parent to better understand the child's skills and talents, and allows the child to learn to help others and share knowledge. In addition, many games that involve multiple players encourage children to work cooperatively to achieve their goals. The children learn to listen to the ideas of others, formulate plans together, and distribute tasks based on skills. Video games create hierarchies of skills and abilities, creating a setting that benefits the development of leadership. A child who is able to manage the tasks necessary to succeed would be more apt at leading work-groups at school. Recently, gaming online with other people has created entirely new types of vast, intricate social networks. Children consider people they have never met to be close friends. By knowing someone strictly through a game, the child learns of the person without any superficiality. By not seeing the their friends, children do not take into account race, gender, or nationality. It is a truly open friendship based on common interest. Finally, violent video games may act as a release of pent-up aggression and frustration. There is no harm in a child's shooting another person in a video game, but there would be serious repercussions if that act was committed in real life. By allowing the child to channel his or her anger in a constructive way, video games are able to reduce the child's stress and act as a positive outlet. Children no longer throw tantrums or fight with siblings but passively act out their frustrations in a virtual world. Many parents advocate sports such as football as an aggression outlet, which is much more brutal than playing a

game. In sports, children are encouraged to physically hurt someone. As Tapscott (1998) noted, "Engaging the child in an interactive experience, developing hand-eye motor skills, giving the child a sense of accomplishment, keeping the child off the streets, and just encouraging having fun are all judged by many parents to be valuable or, at worst, benign" (p. 162).

Violent Video Games - Psychologists Help Protect

Children from Harmful Effects

Psychological research confirms that violent video games can increase children's aggression, but that parents moderate the negative effects. Findings

Fifty years' of research on violent television and movies has shown that there are several negative effects of watching such fare (see http://www.psychologymatters.org/mediaviolence.html). Because video games are a newer medium, there is less research on them than there is on TV and movies. However, studies by psychologists such as Douglas Gentile, PhD, and Craig Anderson, PhD, indicate it is likely that violent video games may have even stronger effects on children's aggression because (1) the games are highly engaging and interactive, (2) the games reward violent behavior, and because (3) children repeat these behaviors over and over as they play (Gentile & Anderson, 2003). Psychologists know that each of these help learning - active involvement improves learning, rewards increase learning, and repeating something over and over increases learning. Drs. Anderson and Gentile's research shows that children are spending increasing amounts of time playing video games - 13 hours per week for boys, on average, and 5 hours per week for girls (Anderson, Gentile, & Buckley, under review; Gentile, Lynch, Linder, & Walsh, 2004). A 2001 content analyses by the research organization Children Now shows that a majority of video games include violence, about half of which would result in serious injuries or death in the 'real' world. Children often say their favorite video games are violent. What is the result of all this video game mayhem? Dr. Anderson and colleagues have shown that playing a lot of violent video games is related to having more aggressive thoughts, feelings, and behaviors (Anderson & Bushman, 2001). Furthermore, playing violent games is also related to children being less willing to be caring and helpful towards their peers. Importantly, research has shown that these effects happen just as much for non-aggressive children as they do for children who already have aggressive tendencies (Anderson et al., under review; Gentile et al., 2004). Parents have an important role to play. Psychologists have found that when parents limit the amount of time as well as the types of games their children play, children are less likely to show aggressive behaviors (Anderson et al., under review; Gentile et al., 2004). Other research suggests that active parental involvement in children's media usage-including discussing the inappropriateness of violent solutions to real life conflicts, reducing time spent on violent media, and generating alternative nonviolent solutions to problems-all can reduce the impact of media violence on children and youth (Anderson et al., 2003).
Significance

Children spend a great deal of time with violent video games at exactly the ages that they should be learning healthy ways to relate to other people and to resolve conflicts peacefully. Because video games are such good teachers, it is critical to help parents, educators, and policy-makers understand how to maximize their benefits while minimizing potential harms.

Practical Application

In 1993, the video game industry began putting ratings on video games (E for 'everyone,' T for 'teen,' and M for 'mature'). Psychologists such as David Walsh, PhD, have conducted research on how useful the ratings are and how easily children can purchase mature-rated video games (e.g., Walsh & Gentile, 2002; see http://www.mediafamily.org/research/report_vgrc_index.shtml to see annual results). This research has caused the video game industry to improve its ratings systems and to improve its policies regarding marketing mature video games to children. Research has shown both the deleterious effects of violent video games on children and the ease with which children can purchase mature-rated games (e.g., FTC, 2003). These combined types of studies have influenced several major retail stores (e.g., Sears, Target, Walmart) to create policies preventing children under 17 from buying mature-rated video games. Researchers are continuing to study how effectively stores enforce such policies. Some researchers have created school curricula to help teach children to reduce their total amount of screen time and/or the types of programs and games watched/played. Although the research is still limited, these curricula show many positive effects, such as a reduction of aggressive behaviors on school playgrounds (Robinson et al., 2001). Some cities, states, and countries have considered legislation preventing the sale of maturerated video games to children (similar to laws preventing the sale of tobacco to children). Also, Dr. Anderson is among the psychologists helping policy-makers to understand the problems that violent video games can pose for children's healthy outcomes. (see his testimony before Congress http://www.psychology.iastate.edu/faculty/caa/abstracts/20002004/00Senate.html). In addition, numerous child advocacy and parent support groups have incorporated video game research findings into their web sites and educational materials. Examples include National Institute on Media and the Family, Lion and Lamb project, Young Media Australia, Children Now, Center for Successful Parenting, Action Coalition for Media Education, and Victorian Parenting Centre.

The Depressive and the PsychopathAt last we know why the

Columbine killers did it.
By Dave CullenPosted Tuesday, April 20, 2004, at 11:59 AM ET

Columbine killersFive years ago today, Eric Harris and Dylan Klebold murdered their classmates and teachers at Columbine High School. Most Americans have reached one of two wrong conclusions about why they did it. The first conclusion is that the pair of supposed "Trench Coat Mafia outcasts" were taking revenge against the bullies who had made school miserable for them. The second conclusion is that the massacre was inexplicable: We can never understand what drove them to such horrific violence.
PRINT DISCUSS E-MAIL RSS MYSPACE RECOMMEND... MIXX DIGG SINGLE PAGE REDDIT DEL.ICIO.US FURL

YAHOO! BUZZ MA.GNOLIA

FACEBOOK

SPHERE

STUMBLEUPONCLOSE

But the FBI and its team of psychiatrists and psychologists have reached an entirely different conclusion. They believe they know why Harris and Klebold killed, and their explanation is both more reassuring and more troubling than our misguided conclusions. Three months after the massacre, the FBI convened a summit in Leesburg, Va., that included world-renowned mental health experts, including Michigan State University psychiatrist Dr. Frank Ochberg, as well as Supervisory Special Agent Dwayne Fuselier, the FBI's lead Columbine investigator and a clinical psychologist. Fuselier and Ochberg share their conclusions publicly here for the first time. The first steps to understanding Columbine, they say, are to forget the popular narrative about the jocks, Goths, and Trenchcoat Mafiaclick here to read more about Columbine's mythsand to abandon the core idea that Columbine was simply a school shooting. We can't understand why they did it until we understand what they were doing.

School shooters tend to act impulsively and attack the targets of their rage: students and faculty. But Harris and Klebold planned for a year and dreamed much bigger. The school served as means to a grander end, to terrorize the entire nation by attacking a symbol of American life. Their slaughter was aimed at students and teachers, but it was not motivated by resentment of them in particular. Students and teachers were just convenient quarry, what Timothy McVeigh described as "collateral damage." The killers, in fact, laughed at petty school shooters. They bragged about dwarfing the carnage of the Oklahoma City bombing and originally scheduled their bloody performance for its anniversary. Klebold boasted on video about inflicting "the most deaths in U.S. history." Columbine was intended not primarily as a shooting at all, but as a bombing on a massive scale. If they hadn't been so bad at wiring the timers, the propane bombs they set in the cafeteria would have wiped out 600 people. After those bombs went off, they planned to gun down fleeing survivors. An explosive third act would follow, when their cars, packed with still more bombs, would rip through still more crowds, presumably of survivors, rescue workers, and reporters. The climax would be captured on live television. It wasn't just "fame" they were

afterAgent Fuselier bristles at that trivializing termthey were gunning for devastating infamy on the historical scale of an Attila the Hun. Their vision was to create a nightmare so devastating and apocalyptic that the entire world would shudder at their power. Harris and Klebold would have been dismayed that Columbine was dubbed the "worst school shooting in American history." They set their sights on eclipsing the world's greatest mass murderers, but the media never saw past the choice of venue. The school setting drove analysis in precisely the wrong direction. Fuselier and Ochberg say that if you want to understand "the killers," quit asking what drove them. Eric Harris and Dylan Klebold were radically different individuals, with vastly different motives and opposite mental conditions. Klebold is easier to comprehend, a more familiar type. He was hotheaded, but depressive and suicidal. He blamed himself for his problems. Harris is the challenge. He was sweet-faced and well-spoken. Adults, and even some other kids, described him as "nice." But Harris was cold, calculating, and homicidal. "Klebold was hurting inside while Harris wanted to hurt people," Fuselier says. Harris was not merely a troubled kid, the psychiatrists say, he was a psychopath. In popular usage, almost any crazy killer is a "psychopath." But in psychiatry, it's a very specific mental condition that rarely involves killing, or even psychosis. "Psychopaths are not disoriented or out of touch with reality, nor do they experience the delusions, hallucinations, or intense subjective distress that characterize most other mental disorders," writes Dr. Robert Hare, in Without Conscience, the seminal book on the condition. (Hare is also one of the psychologists consulted by the FBI about Columbine and by Slate for this story*.) "Unlike psychotic individuals, psychopaths are rational and aware of what they are doing and why. Their behavior is the result of choice, freely exercised." Diagnosing Harris as a psychopath represents neither a legal defense, nor a moral excuse. But it illuminates a great deal about the thought process that drove him to mass murder.