Resolved: Violent video games cause increased aggressive behavior

1. Meta-analytic reviews Meta-analytic analysis is very important when looking at a variety of issues. Meta-analysis is when scholars look at the research and determine what the sum of the research indicates. Many would claim this is merely a bandwagon fallacy—just because a majority of experts believe in one thing, it does not make it true. But this is misleading: meta-analysis is not a head count, but it tells us what a majority of the evidence is telling us. Meta-analysis techniques, therefore, are important when forming an opinion on any issue. An early meta-analysis was published in 2001. The analysis was in response to the growing popularity of violent videogames. The study was not there to make new claims, but rather summarize what has already been published. Overall, evidence indicated violent videogames do cause aggression. The study also attempted to reconcile how there are some who argue videogames do not cause aggression. For example, an early meta-analysis in 1998 claimed there was strong evidence that videogames cause aggression, whereas in 1999 there was a study with the opposite conclusion, criticizing previous research for methodological flaws. This study reviewed all of the evidence, and concluded violent videogames likely causes aggressive behaviors—but concedes some methodological flaws are prevalent in the literature, and offers suggestions for future research [1. http://tinyurl.com...]. Another analysis was published on the same year in the American Psychological Society. A criticism which CON notes is how laboratory results may differ from the real world—and I accept that idea. However, studies in the field also corroborate the idea that violent videogames do foster aggressive behavior. The results seem to apply to both males and females. Violent videogames also reduce prosocial behavior—i.e. helping people in need. Research indicates violent media in general can cause increased aggressive behavior. Violent video games, then, should have the same effect. If anything, it should be greater, as it is more immersive. The authors conclude, “These results clearly support the hypothesis that exposure to violent video games poses a public-health threat to children and youths, including college-age individuals” [2. http://tinyurl.com...]. The former analysis was briefly updated in 2003. The updated version looked more closely into methodological differences. It noted methodologically weaker studies found no effect. Methodologically superior studies found strong effects between videogames and violence. Other meta-analytic reviews failed to look into methodology very closely. This means, if anything, previous reviews underestimate the amount of violence videogames cause. The vast majority of research supports my position—and the stronger methodology used, the stronger the effect between violence and videogames seems to become [3. http://tinyurl.com...]. The final review worth noting is Anderson et al. 2010. Easily the most comprehensive review of the literature, the study expands upon previous research. Looking over new evidence as well as adjusting for methodological flaws pointed out by critics (namely, Christopher Ferguson). What is interesting, the skeptical reviews my Ferguson rely upon “a very small set of available studies” [4. http://tinyurl.com...]. Those studies also use poor methods in order to control for perceived publication bias, questionable trim and fill methods, and the multiple studies are not independent studies—they rely upon similar datasets with few changes. The authors conducted this review on order to address Ferguson’s criticisms and expand upon previous summarization. The study also reviewed evidence from foreign nations—such as Japan—as previous reviews focused solely on Western countries. Players are not merely moving the controller. They become immersed within such virtual reality, which leads them to become aggressive and mimic certain behaviors. The evidence strongly supports the idea that violent videogames cause aggression [4]. 2. Non-laboratory results confirm that videogames cause aggression Laboratory studies are invaluable for this line of research—there is no doubt about it. But laboratory research alone is not sufficient enough to prove a causal link, as the real world has other factors at work. A large survey asked questions to 430 elementary schools students, 607 adolescents, and 1441 older adolescents (mean age 19 years). Rating of behavior was both self-rated as well as rated by teachers. Peers were also utilized in order to rate their fellow classmates behavior. Nearly every methodology and age group had one thing in common. Those who played videogames were rated higher in aggression categories, and those who played violent videogames more often were also rated as more aggressive [5. http://tinyurl.com...]. According to the APA, there is an abundance of evidence that videogames “may also be more conducive to increasing aggressive behavior than passively watching violence on TV and in films”. The APA recommends “the reduction of all violence in videogames and interactive media marketed to children and youth” [6. http://tinyurl.com...]. It is also illogical to argue that laboratory studies are wholly irrelevant. Factors which lead to real-world violence seem to have similar effects in laboratory settings. Therefore, it is incorrect to argue that effects in the real world will differ significantly than results in a lab [7. http://tinyurl.com...]. 3. Crime rates A significant portion of Con’s case revolves around youth violence decreasing as videogame consumption increases. What first must be noted is the study my opponent cited (Ferguson 2014) excludes children who are within the age group 18 – 22. These children are in college. If anything, those in that age group are the most prone for aggressive behavior due to violent videogames. Indeed, college videogame players tend to become agitated much more easily as they see higher aggression rates when playing games which are only E-rated [7]. Therefore, the results may have been different had this high risk group been included. Second, to claim youth violence is decreasing does not harm the theory. Violence is decreasing not because of videogames, but in spite of it. The claim assumes a few things. A) videogame consumption is increasing, B) youth violence is decreasing, and C) videogames are a primary factor in overall violence rates. (a) is likely a correct assumption. (b) is debatable. A 2001 report by the US Surgeon General’s office shows an increase in youth violence. And since about 1989, the trend has stayed relatively stable [8. http://tinyurl.com...]. The second assumption is blatantly false. Media violence is one factor in determining overall crime rates, but it is not the most important one [7]. Therefore, it is not shocking that decreases in violence could still occur even if media consumption increases. It is undisputed that overall violent crime has fallen since the late 1980s [9. http://tinyurl.com...]. A lot of research has answered the question as to what caused the decline. If these factors are large enough—which they were—they would override any positive relationship between videogames and crime. So, what large forces cause the crime decreases? One of the factors was the increased usage of the death penalty. The vast majority of peer-refereed publications support the notion that the death penalty decreases crime. The death penalty has been used more frequently during the period which we saw massive crime reduction. The increase in executions likely led to 12 – 14% of the nation’s decrease in the homicide rate. The death penalty may even have a slight deterrent effect on other violent crimes, as if a victim dies in a rape, robbery, or assault they can be executed. Therefore, the DP may even reduce overall violent crime rates. The number of prisoners may also have decreased crime rates. As there were higher arrest rates, criminals were deterred. Studies indicate the more certain the punishment, the more deterrent effect will be produced. Higher overall arrest rates and conviction rates significantly decreased crime. Arrest rates decreased crime 16 – 18%, and increased conviction decreased another 12%. Right-to-carry laws were also implemented and those who had concealed carry permits became a more common occurrence. The death penalty, law enforcement, and right to carry laws were responsible for 60% of the violent crime decrease [10. John Lott. Freakonomics (2007) pp 135, 139, 144]. Violent videogames did not cause a crime decrease: a crime decrease occurred in spite of increased media consumption. Other factors have merely masked the effects of increased media consumption. 4. Theoretical considerations Most sociological models predict repeated exposure to media violence would increase aggressive attitudes. Psychologists Craig Anderson and Brad Bushman have created the General Aggression Model, which claims videogames do cause aggression [2]. The model neatly explains how videogames lead to increased violence. The model has recently been verified [11. http://tinyurl.com...] using empirical techniques. Therefore, it is not surprising that the majority [1][2][3][4] of published research supports the notion that videogames cause increased tendencies for violence. Nor is it surprising that laboratory [7] and empirical [1][2][3][4][5][6] studies both conclude videogames cause violence. The following graphic is from [2], and briefly explains the general aggression model. The empirical verification of the model [11] is below it. Conclusion A vast majority of published research corroborates the conclusion that violent videogames cause violence. I have fulfilled any suggested burden of proof.