U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE

WASHINGTON : 

For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office

Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512–1800; DC area (202) 512–1800

Fax: (202) 512–2250 Mail: Stop SSOP, Washington, DC 20402–0001

78–656 PDF 2003

S. HRG. 106–1096

THE IMPACT OF INTERACTIVE VIOLENCE ON

CHILDREN

HEARING

BEFORE THE

COMMITTEE ON COMMERCE, 

SCIENCE, AND TRANSPORTATION 

UNITED STATES SENATE

ONE HUNDRED SIXTH CONGRESS

SECOND SESSION

MARCH 21, 2000

Printed for the use of the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation

(

(II)

SENATE COMMITTEE ON COMMERCE, SCIENCE, AND TRANSPORTATION

ONE HUNDRED SIXTH CONGRESS

SECOND SESSION

JOHN MCCAIN, Arizona, Chairman 

TED STEVENS, Alaska 

CONRAD BURNS, Montana 

SLADE GORTON, Washington 

TRENT LOTT, Mississippi 

KAY BAILEY HUTCHISON, Texas 

OLYMPIA J. SNOWE, Maine 

JOHN ASHCROFT, Missouri 

BILL FRIST, Tennessee 

SPENCER ABRAHAM, Michigan 

SAM BROWNBACK, Kansas 

ERNEST F. HOLLINGS, South Carolina 

DANIEL K. INOUYE, Hawaii 

JOHN D. ROCKEFELLER IV, West Virginia 

JOHN F. KERRY, Massachusetts 

JOHN B. BREAUX, Louisiana 

RICHARD H. BRYAN, Nevada 

BYRON L. DORGAN, North Dakota 

RON WYDEN, Oregon 

MAX CLELAND, Georgia 

MARK BUSE, Republican Staff Director 

MARTHA P. ALLBRIGHT, Republican General Counsel 

KEVIN D. KAYES, Democratic Staff Director 

MOSES BOYD, Democratic Chief Counsel 

(III)

C O N T E N T S 

Page 

Hearing held on March 21, 2000 ............................................................................ 1

Statement of Senator Brownback ........................................................................... 1

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 3

Statement of Senator Dorgan ................................................................................. 24

WITNESSES

Anderson, Dr. Craig A., Professor, Iowa State University, Department of 

Psychology, Ames, Iowa ....................................................................................... 32

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 35

Funk, Dr. Jeanne B., Ph.D., Department of Psychology, University of Toledo .. 44

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 46

Provenzo, Jr., Eugene F., Professor, School of Education, University of Miami 39

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 42

Shimotakahara, Danielle, Student, North Bend, Oregon ..................................... 17

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 20

Steger, Sabrina, Pediatrics Nurse, Lourdes Hospital, Paducah, Kentucky ........ 11

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 14

Walsh, Dr. David, President, National Institute on Media and the Family, 

Minneapolis, Minnesota ....................................................................................... 5

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 8

APPENDIX

Goldstein, Jeffrey, Ph.D., Department of Social and Organizational Psychology, University of Utrecht, The Netherlands, prepared statement ........... 63

Lowenstein, Douglas, president, Interactive Digital Software Association, prepared statement ................................................................................................... 59

Video Software Dealers Association, prepared statement .................................... 71

(1)

THE IMPACT OF INTERACTIVE VIOLENCE ON 

CHILDREN 

TUESDAY, MARCH 21, 2000

U.S. SENATE, 

COMMITTEE ON COMMERCE, SCIENCE, AND TRANSPORTATION, 

Washington, DC. 

The Committee met, pursuant to notice, at 9:35 a.m. in room SR–

253, Russell Senate Office Building, Hon. Sam Brownback presiding. 

Staff members assigned to this hearing: David Crane, Republican 

Professional Staff; Paula Ford, Democratic Senior Counsel; and Al 

Mottur, Democratic Counsel. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. SAM BROWNBACK,

U.S. SENATOR FROM KANSAS 

Senator BROWNBACK. I call the meeting room to order. Thanks 

for joining us this morning. I want to thank my friend and Commerce Committee Chairman, John McCain, for agreeing to hold 

this hearing and offering a forum to discuss what has become an 

important public issue. 

We are privileged to hear today from two distinguished panels of 

witnesses. I appreciate your presence this morning as well. Coming 

from a long distance, I understand even one of you forfeited your 

spring break and a trip to Mexico to come here to testify in front 

of the U.S. Senate Commerce Committee, and I appreciate that 

deeply. 

I think it is also important to note who is not here today. In putting together this hearing, we invited a wide variety of video, PC, 

and arcade industry executives to testify. We invited the leader of 

their trade association to testify, and when each of them claimed 

to have a terribly important meeting at this exact time, we extended the invitation to any member of their company who could 

represent them, and still in every case we were refused. 

It is disappointing that the executives of Sega, Hasbro, Hasbro 

Interactive, Nintendo, ID Software, Midway Games, the Video Software Dealers Association, the American Amusement Machine Association, and the Interactive Digital Software Association could not 

be here today. All of them represent powerful and profitable communications companies, but none of them apparently felt they 

needed to communicate with the U.S. Senate. Nor is this the first 

time that some of these companies have refused an invitation to 

testify. This is a shame, but more than that, it is shameful. It 

shows contempt for Congress. It cannot continue. 

2

We are here today to discuss the potential impact of an increasingly powerful entertainment medium. Over the past several years, 

the video, PC, Internet, and arcade industry has dramatically increased in terms of profitability and pervasiveness. Video games 

are no longer relegated to a corner of the pizza parlor. They are 

now the basis of movies, the inspiration for numerous toys, costumes, magazines, and electronic spin-offs, and are found in an increasing number in homes. 

A few months ago, a study was released by the Annenberg Institute of the University of Pennsylvania, which found that the average child in America spends more than 41⁄2 hours a day in front 

of a screen watching television, playing video games and PC games, 

and surfing the Internet. Kids spend more time staring at a screen 

than they do in school or with their parents, which means that 

what they watch and what they play can have a profound influence 

on their young minds and young lives. 

When it comes to violent television and movies, literally thousands of studies have pointed to a negative link between watching 

violence and antisocial behavior, responses, and attitudes, but despite the skyrocketing popularity and profitability of violent video 

games, the impact and influence of these games has largely escaped public and parental attention. 

Of course, the majority of video and PC games produced are nonviolent. Many are educational as well as entertaining. Some teachers have praised certain games for their effectiveness in teaching 

math and motor skills, but there are many games sold in toy stores 

across the country, advertised in venues accessible to children, and 

demonstrably popular among young people, which celebrate killing, 

carnage, and cruelty. 

Consider just a few examples: The highly popular game Duke 

Nukem combines the graphic killing of aliens with images of scantily clad women. Advanced players get to murder naked female 

prostitutes, some of whom are tied to posts and beg the player to 

kill them. The games Carmageddon and Twisted Metal cast the 

player as a deranged motorist, whose aim is to run over as many 

pedestrians and other drivers as possible. The more bystanders you 

kill, the higher your score. 

In Grand Theft Auto 2, players can engage in drive-by shootings, 

drug-dealing, and car theft as they simulate gangster activity. 

These may seem over the top, but they are actually among the 

more popular games around. In fact, one survey of fourth to eighth 

graders found that almost half the kids said their favorite electronic games involved violence. 

Now, defenders of these games say that they are mere fantasy 

and harmless role-playing, but is it really the best thing for our 

children to play the role of a murderous psychopath? Is it all just 

good fun to positively reinforce virtual slaughter? Is it truly harmless to simulate mass murder? 

That is part of what this hearing is about. We want to take a 

hard look at these products and, more importantly, their impact. If 

a typical child spends up to an hour a day playing video and PC 

games, and I have two children of video-PC age, and they do play 

a lot of games, it simply stands to reason if they are playing that 

much of these games, that these experiences will have some impact 

3

on their thoughts and feelings. It is simply part of human nature 

that what we experience affects our attitudes and assumptions and, 

thus, our decisions and behavior. 

The way in which they affect us is bound to be complex and variable, but we need to start asking questions and getting answers. 

Raising children is a precious duty and a precarious task. It requires nurture, sacrifice, and lots of love, time, and attention, but 

even the most devoted parents may find it impossible to always 

know what their child is playing, or to shield their child from images and messages that surround them at school, the mall, at a 

friend’s house, or at an arcade. 

Many devoted, loving parents may not know about the messages 

of these games. They may not know that their children can participate in murder simulations at the local arcade, and even if they do 

know, they cannot always shield them from the harmful influences. 

We can no more shield our child from a polluted culture than we 

can shield them from polluted air. 

Parents, of course, have primary responsibility to protect, raise, 

and care for their children, but it does not mean that the companies have carte blanche to confuse and to corrupt them. We all 

have a role to play in protecting and caring for children, and in 

doing what we can to make our country safer and our society more 

civil. I am hopeful that some of the testimony we will hear today 

will shed light on a subject that has generated so much heat. 

Let me say as well, before we go to our first panel, this has been 

an area of inquiry by the U.S. Senate for over a year, and we have 

been concerned that we have not had the depth of study on the impact of interactive violent games. There has been a thought that 

these have an impact. There has been a concern, a feeling that this 

is what is happening, but we did not have the studies. 

Today we will hear from a number of experts who are studying 

this issue, and look at the central issue of how does this impact a 

child? What does playing all of these violent, interactive games do 

to a child? What does it do to a child if they’re playing a game 

where they commit mass murder, carnage on the road, and are rewarded points for shooting scantily clad prostitutes? What does it 

do to a child? 

That is going to be the central question we are asking. We hope 

to receive answers from today’s hearing, and I am deeply troubled 

that the industry is not here to say, yes, we have studied this, and 

here is the impact. Rather, they seem more concerned just about 

profitability than how their products affect our children. I call on 

the industry to come forward and answer these questions. Tell us. 

Tell us what the impact is. If there is no impact, tell us that, and 

that you have studied this and that you know that to be the case, 

but do not just hide. 

[The prepared statement of Senator Brownback follows:]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF HON. SAM BROWNBACK, U.S. SENATOR FROM KANSAS

Good morning. I want to thank my friend and Commerce Committee Chairman 

John McCain for agreeing to hold this hearing, and for offering a forum to discuss 

what has become an important public issue. 

We are privileged to hear from a most distinguished panel of witnesses today. I 

appreciate your presence here. 

4

But I think it is also important to note who is NOT here today. In putting together this hearing, we invited a wide variety of video, PC and arcade industry executives to testify. We invited the leaders of their trade associations to testify. And 

when each of them claimed to have a terribly important meeting at this exact time, 

we extended the invitation to any member of their company who could represent 

them. And still, in every single case, we were refused. 

It is disappointing that the executives at Sega, Hasbro, Hasbro Interactive, 

Nintendo, ID Software, Midway Games, the Video Software Dealers Association, the 

American Amusement Machine Association, and the Interactive Digital Software Association could not be here today. All them represent powerful and profitable communications companies. But none of them apparently felt they needed to communicate with the United States Senate. Nor is this the first time that some of these 

companies have refused an invitation to testify. This is a shame, but more than 

that, it is shameful. It shows contempt for Congress. It cannot continue. 

We are here today to discuss the potential impact of an increasingly powerful entertainment medium. Over the past several years, the video, PC, Internet and arcade industry has dramatically increased in terms of profitability and pervasiveness. 

Video games are no longer relegated to a corner of the pizza parlor; they are now 

the basis of movies, the inspiration for numerous toys, costumes, magazines, and 

electronic spin-offs; and are found in an increasing number of homes. 

A few months ago, a study was released by the Annenberg Institute of the University of Pennsylvania which found that the average child in America spends more 

than four and a half hours a day in front of a screen—watching TV, playing video 

and PC games, and surfing the internet. Kids spend more time staring at a screen 

than they do in school, or with their parents—which means that what they watch, 

and what they play, can have a profound influence on their young minds, and young 

lives. 

When it comes to violent television and movies, literally thousands of studies have 

pointed to a negative link between watching violence and anti-social behavior, responses and attitudes. But despite the skyrocketing popularity and profitability of 

violent video games, the impact and influence of these games has largely escaped 

public and parental attention. 

Of course, the majority of video and PC games produced are non-violent. Many 

are educational, as well as entertaining. Some teachers have praised certain games 

for their effectiveness in teaching math and motor skills. But there are many games, 

sold in toy stores across the country, advertised in venues accessible to children, and 

demonstrably popular among young people, which celebrate killing, carnage, and 

cruelty. 

Consider just a few examples:

• The highly popular game ‘‘Duke Nukem’’ combines the graphic killing of 

aliens with images of scantily clad women. Advanced players get to murder 

naked female prostitutes, some of whom are tied to posts and beg the player 

to kill them. 

• The games ‘‘Carmageddon’’ and ‘‘Twisted Metal’’ cast the player as a deranged 

motorist, whose aim is to run over as many pedestrians and other drivers as 

possible. The more bystanders you kill, the higher your score. 

• In ‘‘Grand Theft Auto 2,’’ players can engage in drive-by shootings, drug dealing, and car theft as they simulate gangster activity.

These may seem over the top, but they are actually among the more popular 

games around. In fact, one survey of fourth-to-eighth graders found that almost half 

the kids said their favorite electronic games involved violence. 

Defenders of these games say that they are mere fantasy, and harmless role-playing. But is it really the best thing for our children to play the role of a murderous 

psychopath? Is it all just good fun to positively reinforce virtual slaughter? Is it 

truly harmless to simulate mass murder? 

That’s part of what this hearing is about. We want to take a hard look at these 

products, and their impact. If a typical child spends up to an hour a day playing 

video and PC games, it simply stands to reason that these experiences will have 

some impact on their thoughts and feelings. It is simply part of human nature that 

what we experience affects our attitudes and assumptions, and thus, our decisions 

and behavior. The way in which they affect us is bound to be complex and variable. 

But we need to start asking questions, and getting answers. 

Raising children is a precious duty and a precarious task. It requires nurture, sacrifice, and lots of love, time, and attention. But even the most devoted parents may 

find it impossible to always know what their child is playing, or to shield their child 

from images and messages that surround them at school, at the mall, at a friend’s 

house, or at an arcade. Many devoted, loving parents may not know about the mesVerDate Apr 24 2002 09:45 May 02, 2003 Jkt 078656 PO 00000 Frm 00008 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 S:\WPSHR\GPO\DOCS\78656.TXT SCOM1 PsN: CAROLT
5

sages of these games. They may not know that their children can participate in 

murder simulations at the local arcade. And even if they do know, they cannot always shield them from harmful influences. We can no more shield our children from 

a polluted culture than we can shield them from polluted air. 

Parents of course have primary responsibility to protect, raise and care for their 

children. But that doesn’t mean that companies have carte blanche to confuse and 

corrupt them. We all have a role to play in protecting and caring for children, and 

in doing what we can to make our country safer and our society more civil. I am 

hopeful that some of the testimony we will hear today will shed light on a subject 

that has generated so much heat. 

VIDEO, PC AND ARCADE GAME INDUSTRY EXECUTIVES INVITED TO TESTIFY

Mr. Minoru Arakawa, President of Nintendo of North America, Nintendo of America, Incorporated 

Mr. Masahiro Aozono, Chief Executive Officer and Mr. Toshiro Kezuka, Chief Operating Officer (U.S.), Sega of America, Incorporated 

Mr. Neil Nicastro, President and Chief Executive Officer, Midway Games, Incorporated 

Mr. Tom Dusenberry, President and Chief Executive Officer, Hasbro Interactive 

Mr. Todd Hollenshead, Chief Executive Officer, Id Software, Incorporated 

Mr. Alan Hassenfeld, Chief Executive Officer and Chairman, Hasbro, Incorporated 

Mr. Doug Lowenstein, President, Interactive Digital Software Association 

Mr. Bo Anderson, President, Video Software Dealers Association 

Mr. Robert Fay, President, American Amusement Machine Association

Senator BROWNBACK. Our first panel includes Dr. David Walsh, 

who is president of the National Institute on Media and the Family. He has done studies and is an expert on this topic. Mrs. 

Sabrina Steger is here with us as well, from Paducah, Kentucky. 

She had a child killed in a terrible tragedy that happened there. 

And we have a teenage expert with us, Danielle Shimotakahara 

from North Bend, Oregon, who is doing her own work to try to improve the situation, the plight of children and their education and 

their entertainment. 

We will open the panel up, Dr. Walsh, and go to you first, and 

we look forward to your testimony. 

STATEMENT OF DR. DAVID WALSH, PRESIDENT, NATIONAL

INSTITUTE ON MEDIA AND THE FAMILY, MINNEAPOLIS,

MINNESOTA 

Dr. WALSH. Senator, before we begin testimony, we do have a 

couple of minutes of video clips, so that we have examples of the 

games that we are talking about that are of concern. I apologize 

in advance if some of these images are very offensive, because I 

think they are, so we are doing it so that people can see. One of 

the things in my testimony we will talk about is the knowledge 

gap, and we are trying to reduce the knowledge gap. The other 

thing is that you will see the advance in the technology. 

The first game is the one you mentioned, Duke Nukem. That is 

about 3 or 4 years old. The two other games, from which there are 

short, 1-minute clips, are Quake and Unreal. Quake is a game that 

also the player can put skins on. What that means is that the player can digitally superimpose images of people that they know, or 

places that are real places, into the game to customize it for their 

own use. 

[A video demonstration was played.] 

We actually made some attempts on Sunday, as we were putting 

this together, to superimpose some images, but we did not complete, so I am not sure exactly how much we did get done, but we 

6

were going to try to customize it and then just ran out of time before I had to come to Washington. 

If I can just make one comment, or two comments, Senator, that 

is, a 12-year-old child can walk into almost any store in the United 

States and buy one of those games. 

Senator BROWNBACK. Any of those you displayed? 

Dr. WALSH. Yes. We have actually had kids do it. In very few 

stores would they have any trouble buying those games. 

Then the other point that I would like to make is that we 

watched that for a little over 3 minutes. Kids play these games for 

hours and hours. 

Senator BROWNBACK. Please go ahead. 

Dr. WALSH. Computer and video games are the fastest-growing 

form of media in the lives of young people in the United States, especially boys. They are also the fastest-changing. The processing 

power of video game platforms has increased an astonishing 188-

fold in the past 7 months alone. The goal of a virtual reality experience is right around the corner. 

Most producers of these games are using the technology positively to bring games to market that engage, challenge, and entertain. There is a sizable segment of the game industry, however, 

that produces games like we saw today that feature and glorify violence and antisocial behavior. In this segment, the ‘‘kill for fun 

murder simulators,’’ that is the focus of concern. 

My comments are about these violent video games, not video 

games in general, and I would like to both share data that we have 

just completed and researched at the National Institute on Media 

and the Family, and then also make some comments putting the 

research in a larger context. We are releasing to you and to your 

fellow Senators today extensive data in written form, and I would 

like to just highlight some of the findings that we have just released. 

Many millions of teens are playing games, 84 percent overall. 92 

percent of boys now play. They are spending more time playing 

games. Boys now average 10 hours a week. At-risk teenage boys 

spend 60 percent more time playing games, and they prefer the 

more violent games, than their other peers. 

The more time spent playing electronic games, the lower the 

school performance. Teens who play violent games do worse in 

school than teens who do not. Youth who prefer violent video 

games are more likely to get into arguments with their teachers, 

and are more likely to get into physical fist fights, whether they 

are boys or girls. 

The knowledge gap between youth and parents about games is 

enormous. Only 15 percent of the teens told us that they think that 

their parents know about the ratings. Only 2 percent said that 

their parents routinely check ratings. Eighteen percent of the boys, 

almost 1 in 5, reported to us that their parents would be upset if 

they knew what games they were playing. 

In terms of the larger context, Senator, next month we will observe the anniversary of the tragic murders at Columbine High 

School, and once again as a Nation we will be confronting the question, how could this have happened? 

7

As we try to sort this out, I believe that we should address the 

major role that media plays in shaping today’s youth culture. By 

saying that, I am not suggesting that video and computer games 

directly caused the murderous rampage. I do not believe that it 

was their favored game, Doom, that led them to load up their guns. 

I do believe, however, that media shape the norms, and the norms 

shape the extremes. 

I doubt that anyone would argue against the statement that 

what happened at Columbine High School last April 20 was extreme. Unfortunately, there have always been, and there always 

will be, youth who are drawn to extreme behavior, but what qualifies as extreme depends on what’s normal. If the entire norm 

changes, then the extremes change with it. If the norm is respect, 

then extreme might be a punch in the nose, but when the norm is 

already in-your-face, then the extremes get very, very tragic, and 

that is where media comes in. 

I believe that whoever tells the stories defines the culture. That 

is not new. It has been true for thousands of years. What is new 

is that during the 20th Century we have delegated more and more 

of the story-telling to mass media. Computer and video games have 

become very influential story-tellers for this generation of children 

and youth. 

As I said earlier, most game producers take the story-telling part 

to new heights. Others, however, do not. They specialize in dishing 

out heaping servings of violence, mayhem, and sexual degradation. 

Today, the average American child will see over 200 violent acts of 

television alone by the time high school graduation rolls around, 

and we have no idea how many simulated murders they will have 

participated in if they are playing video games like the three that 

we just saw. 

While the research linking electronic games with attitudes and 

behavior is in the early stages, the research on other forms of 

media is so overwhelming that few researchers even bother to dispute that screen bloodshed has an effect on the kids watching it. 

What do we think the effect of a steady diet of violent video 

games like Soldier of Fortune could be? Last week, a 15-year-old 

boy sent to me, and I did not ask him to do this, sent to me an 

ad for Soldier of Fortune, a new game. Some of the copy reads, 

‘‘Each gore zone gets a different reaction to keep you from getting 

bored.’’ In my judgment, the most insidious effect of a diet of this 

kind of media is not so much the violent behavior, but, rather, the 

culture of disrespect that it engenders. 

For every Eric Harris, Dillon Klebold, or Michael Carneal, there 

are millions of other kids who are not murdering their classmates, 

but they are putting each other down, pushing, shoving, and hitting with increasing frequency all the time. Games like these are 

redefining how it is that we are supposed to treat one another, 

from ‘‘Have a nice day’’ to ‘‘Make my day.’’ Too many of our kids 

are picking up the kinds of messages contained in the final line of 

the Soldier of Fortune ad, ‘‘Now the only question is where your 

next target gets it first.’’

A Cree Indian elder said many years ago, children are the purpose of life. We were once children, and someone took care of us. 

8

Now it is our turn to care. We all, media leaders, game producers, 

and parents, have to do a lot better job of caring. 

Thank you. 

[The prepared statement of Dr. Walsh follows:]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF DR. DAVID WALSH, PRESIDENT, NATIONAL INSTITUTE ON

MEDIA AND THE FAMILY, MINNEAPOLIS, MINNESOTA

Background 

Concern about video game violence is not new. There were calls to ban violent 

games as early as 1976 when Death Race, often acknowledged as the first violent 

video game, appeared on the market. Of course, the violence in Death Race seems 

tame in comparison with today’s ‘‘first person shooters.’’ As technology advances, 

each generation of violent games became more graphic and extreme. The processing 

power of video game platforms has increased an astonishing 188 fold in the past 

seven months. The goal of creating virtual experiences draws ever closer. The addition of sexual material and crude language raises additional worries. 

As the annual report cards issued by the National Institute on Media and the 

Family have shown, the most violent games still find their way into the hands of 

millions of children and teens. Since these games have become implicated in the 

string of recent school shootings, concern has reached new heights. This testimony 

brings together some of the findings from research to determine if these concerns 

are justified. In addition it provides findings from ongoing research being conducted 

at the National Institute on Media and the Family. 

Review of Research Literature 

The first thing we learn from the research is that it is the younger children who 

spend the most time playing games. According to one study, the time spent playing 

video and computer games peaks between the ages of eight and thirteen (Roberts, 

1999). A study we completed at the National Institute on Media and the Family 

found a similar pattern with game playing time peaking between eight and fifteen 

(Gentile and Walsh, 1999). We also know that youth, especially boys, gravitate to 

the ‘‘action games,’’ which include the ‘‘first person shooters.’’ In one study 50% of 

boys listed violent games as their favorites (Buchman and Funk, 1996). A growing 

number of children and teens now have the technological skills to customize the 

computer games. A recent development is putting ‘‘skins’’ on the characters in the 

games. This means that the player can insert the images of real people and places 

thereby making the games even more realistic. 

Many pre-teens and young teenagers therefore spend a significant amount of time 

playing electronic games, with a preference for the violent ones. We also know that 

they have easy and frequent access to increasingly violent and realistic games. The 

next important question is, of course, ‘‘What are the effects of this?’’ Because the 

ultra-violent games are relatively new, the research literature is just beginning to 

accumulate. Research findings appearing in the 1980s and early 1990s are irrelevant because those studies did not include the types of violent games that have proliferated in the past six or seven years. For the last few years most experts have 

pointed to the vast body of research on television violence. That research clearly 

shows that a heavy exposure causes negative effects on children (Walsh, Brown, and 

Goldman, 1996). 

Because there has been so little relevant research specifically focusing on electronic games, some state that there is no demonstration of harm to children. That, 

of course, was the same argument used to defend television violence for more than 

three decades. It was only after many years of research that that argument was 

abandoned. That argument, however, will become harder to maintain with regard 

to electronic games, because some important research findings are starting to appear that support the contention that the violence in computer and video games 

may indeed have a harmful effect. 

I would like to highlight the findings of two research projects that found similar 

results independently. The first project was done by our collaborator Paul Lynch at 

the University of Oklahoma Medical School. Lynch has been studying the physiological reactions of teenagers to video games for ten years. He found that violent 

video games caused much greater physiological changes than non-violent games. 

The changes were found for heart rate and blood pressure as well as the aggressionrelated hormones, adrenaline, noradrenaline, and testosterone. A very important 

finding in Lynch’s research is that the effect was much greater for males who 

pretested high on measures of anger and hostility. In other words, the violent games 

9

do not seem to affect everyone the same. Angry youth react much more strongly to 

violent video games than do more easy-going kids (Lynch, 1999). 

This finding was confirmed in a sophisticated research project completed by Craig 

Anderson of Iowa State University and Karen Dill of Lenoir-Rhyne College. In my 

judgement, Anderson and Dill have executed the best study of video game violence 

to date. It will be published in its entirety in a forthcoming issue of the Journal 

of Personality and Social Psychology. They conducted two separate studies, one of 

which was an experiment. 

In the first study they found a positive correlation between real-life aggressive behavior and violent video game play. In addition, they discovered that violent video 

game play was correlated with delinquency. Like Lynch, they also found that the 

correlation was much stronger for individuals who are characteristically aggressive. 

It is also noteworthy that Anderson and Dill found that the college students who 

spent the most time playing video games had the lowest grade point averages. 

Correlational studies are important but do not establish a causal link. It could be 

that aggressive people who get into more trouble prefer violent video games. To 

begin to address the causal question, the two researchers designed an experiment. 

They used games of the same difficulty thereby ruling out frustration as a reason 

for aggression that might result from playing a violent game. Those students randomly assigned to play a violent game showed increases in aggressive thoughts and 

aggressive behavior. The students assigned to a non-violent game did not. 

National Institute on Media and the Family Study on Computer and Video Games—

Preliminary Results 

Douglas Gentile, Ph.D., Director of Research at the National Institute on Media 

and the Family in collaboration with Paul Lynch of the University of Oklahoma and 

myself have designed a program of research to determine the effects of video and 

computer games on children and teens. While the program of research will take a 

number of years and sufficient funding to complete, I am able to report preliminary 

findings in this testimony. 

These results are based on responses to a survey administered to 137 teens in 

grades 8–12 in a large suburban school district near a large midwestern city. 94 

were students in general classes. 43 were students in a special program for ‘‘at risk 

students.’’

Electronic Game Habits 

• 84% of teens overall play electronic games. 92% of boys play games. 

• The average teen plays video games for 1 hour at a sitting (does not include teens 

who don’t play). 

• Among boys only, the average length of game play at one sitting is 84 minutes 

(almost 11⁄2 hours). 

• 25% of teens who play games say they understand all of the ESRB ratings, with 

an additional 29% saying they understand some of them. 

• Only 15% of teens say that their parents understand the ESRB ratings. 

• 90% of teens say their parents ‘‘never’’ check the ratings before allowing them to 

buy or rent video games (another 8 percent say their parents ‘‘rarely’’ check the 

ratings). 

• Only 1 percent of teens who play games say their parents have ever kept them 

from getting a game because of its rating. 

• Only 56% of teens who own their own games say that their parents know all of 

the games they own. Only 46% of boys who own their own games say that their 

parents know all of the games they own. 

• 14% of teens (18% of boys) who own their own games say they have games their 

parents wouldn’t approve of if they knew what was in them. 

• 32% of boys who play video games download video games from the Internet. 

• 25% of teens (41% of boys) say they have played so much that it interferes with 

their homework. 

• 13% of teens (21% of boys) say they have done poorly on a school assignment or 

test because they spent too much time playing video games. 

• 89% of teens (91% of boys) say that their parents ‘‘never’’ put limits on how much 

time they are allowed to play video games. 

• 42% of teens (52% of boys) say that they sometimes try to limit their own playing, 

but only 70% of them (67% of boys) are successful in limiting their own playing. 

• The average teen likes a moderate amount of violence in their video games (median = 5 on a scale of 1 to 10). Among boys only, the average teen likes a fair 

amount of violence in their games (median = 7 on a scale of 1 to 10). 

• Over three-quarters (77%) of boys who play video games at least ‘‘sometimes’’ customize the video games they play. 

10

• 41% of boys at least ‘‘sometimes’’ visit game sites on the Internet, and 32% of boys 

at least ‘‘sometimes’’ play video games over the Internet. 

• 15% of teens (29% of boys) say they have felt like they were addicted to video 

games. 

• Among boys only, teens spend an average of 19 hours/week watching TV, 10 

hours/week playing video games (includes teens who play zero hours), 18 hours/

week listening to music, and 1 hour/week reading for pleasure. (When teens who 

never play are removed, the average time/week playing video games is 11 hours.) 

• Among at-risk boys only, teens spend an average of 25 hours/week watching TV, 

16 hours/week playing video games (includes teens who play zero hours), 19 

hours/week listening to music, and slightly more than 2 hours/week reading for 

pleasure (138 minutes). (When teens who never play are removed, the average 

time/week playing video games is 161⁄4 hours.) 

• Boys expose themselves to more video game violence than girls, and at-risk teens 

expose themselves to more video game violence than general students (defined 

from violence levels of 3 favorite games and frequency of playing each—based on 

Anderson & Dill approach). 

Effects: School Performance 

• Amount of time playing video games has a negative impact on school performance, 

by many different measures: Teens who play more each week, play more yearly, 

and have played more over their lifetimes perform more poorly in school (as selfreported) than teens who play less. 

• Teens who say they like to have more violence in their games perform more poorly 

in school than teens who like less violence. 

• Teens who named more violent games as their favorite three games perform more 

poorly in school than teens who named less violent games as their favorites. 

• Teens who expose themselves to more violence in video games perform more poorly in school than teens who expose themselves to less violence in video games. 

Effects: Arguments with Teachers 

• Teens who prefer more violence in their video games get into arguments with 

their teachers more frequently than teens who prefer less violence in their video 

games. 

• Teens who expose themselves to more violence in video games argue more frequently with their teachers than teens who expose themselves to less violence in 

video games. 

Effects: Physical Fights 

• Amount of time playing video games is positively correlated with getting into 

physical fights, by many different measures: Teens who play more each week, 

play more yearly, and have played more over their lifetimes are more likely to 

have gotten into a fight in the past year than teens who play less. 

• Similarly, teens who say they are more familiar with video games are more likely 

to have gotten into a fight in the past year than teens who are less familiar with 

video games. 

• Teens who prefer more violence in their video games are more likely to have gotten into a physical fight in the past year than teens who prefer less violence in 

their video games. 

• Teens who named more violent games as their favorite three games are more likely to have gotten into a physical fight in the past year than teens who named less 

violent games as their favorites. 

• Teens who expose themselves to more violence in video games are more likely to 

have gotten into a physical fight in the past year than teens who expose themselves to less violence in video games. 

Significant Differences between General and At-Risk Teens 

• At-risk teens perform more poorly in school. 

• At-risk teens name more violent games as their three favorite video games. 

• At-risk teens get into arguments with parents, peers, and teachers more frequently than general teens. 

• Among boys only, at-risk boys are less likely to say they usually feel ‘‘positive’’

after playing video games. 

Some Significant Differences between Boys and Girls 

• Boys are more familiar with video games than girls. 

• Boys play more frequently than girls. 

• Boys are more likely to own their own games than girls. 

11

• Boys play longer at each sitting than girls (means = 84 and 40 minutes, respectively). 

• Boys like more violence in their video games than girls. 

• Boys play more each week than girls (means = 10 and 3 hours, respectively). 

• Boys name more violent games as their three favorite games than girls. 

• Boys expose themselves to more video game violence than girls.

These sample sizes provide data accurate to ±10% when generalizing to general 

populations of teens, and to ±17% when generalizing to at-risk populations of teens. 

Additional studies will need to be completed before we can claim that there is a 

demonstrated cause effect relationship between video game violence and real life aggression. However, the recent research developments show that the concern about 

the impact of violent video games is justified. It should act as a spur for both more 

research and for greater vigilance over the video and computer game diet of children 

and youth.

Senator BROWNBACK. Could you hold that ad up again? Could 

you explain it? 

Dr. WALSH. That is an advertisement for a new game which was 

just released called ‘‘Soldier of Fortune,’’ and the torso is divided 

up into different segments called gore areas, gore regions, and it 

is to keep the player from getting bored. When you hit the different 

areas, then different things happen. 

The other reason I brought this is that the industry announced 

last fall that they were implementing an advertising code of conduct and would be cracking down on advertising which is inappropriate. I would submit that this is inappropriate in gaming magazines that kids subscribe to. 

Senator BROWNBACK. I would, too. Thank you very much for your 

testimony, and I will look forward to asking some questions I have 

for you. 

We will next go to Mrs. Sabrina Steger. We are pleased you are 

willing to come and share your testimony with us. Mrs. Steger, the 

floor is yours. 

STATEMENT OF MRS. SABRINA STEGER, PEDIATRICS NURSE, 

LOURDES HOSPITAL, PADUCAH, KENTUCKY 

Mrs. STEGER. I am the person that you do not want to be. I live 

a parent’s worst nightmare. The nightmare does not go away, and 

the saying that time heals all wounds is greatly overrated. I looked 

into a casket and saw my little girl. There are no words to describe 

how it feels. Nothing looks the same or feels the same after seeing 

your own child lying in a casket. 

On December 1, 1997, the 14-year-old boy took the sum total of 

influence on his life and five guns into Heath High School. After 

watching students pray, he opened fire on them. Kayce, Jessica, 

and Nicole died that day. So did this country’s belief that schools 

are a safe haven for our students. 

When I learned that my daughter, Kayce, might be involved, I 

rushed back to the hospital that I worked at for 20 years. As I approached the emergency room, arms held me back. Every time I 

tried to get close to Kayce, arms stopped me. Those arms were connected to familiar-sounding voices, but they were trying to stop me 

from doing the only thing that mattered, getting to my little girl. 

I still have nightmares about those arms. 

I am here today to ask you not to be an arm, an obstacle that 

makes it harder for parents to protect their children. We believe 

that the Heath shooter was influenced by the movies he watched, 

12

the video games he played, and the Internet sites he accessed. 

Video games are a common form of entertainment, and more and 

more often they are violent. Even before Kayce was killed, my kids 

did not play violent games, but I did not know how big the monster 

was. 

Despite what some parents think, these are not the games that 

we played. Today’s games are so sophisticated that some even have 

recoil after a shot is fired. They are so real, the military uses them 

to train soldiers. But the soldiers are adults, and the simulations 

are carefully monitored. Yet the video games are as effective as the 

simulators. Just how deadly? The Heath shooter, despite practicing 

only once before the murders, did not miss a shot. 

The recent Diallo case involved police firing 41 rounds and hitting the man 19 times. Less than half the shots fired by trained 

policemen hit their target, but 100 percent of those fired by teenagers hit students in the kill zone, one shot per victim. He did not 

shoot until they fell. He had learned his games very well. 

My son Dustin was 9 years old when his sister was killed. He 

was at the hospital when she arrived, and he watched the paramedics take her off the ambulance doing CPR. He saw her lying 

lifeless on the stretcher. He looked at his parents, the ones who 

could not protect Kayce, and wondered if they could take care of 

him. He and his sister, Becky, saw their home change from one of 

laughter to one of tears. They saw their own childhoods end that 

day. Their lives and futures were forever changed the second the 

killer decided to pull the trigger. 

Dustin has a PlayStation, and he enjoyed racing and sports 

games. He wanted a skate-boarding game for a long time, but was 

disappointed when he got it. The tricks are ‘‘sweet.’’ For anyone 

without children, that means real good. But every time the skateboarder falls, blood squirts. Dustin does not want to see the blood, 

but it cannot be turned off. My son does not have the choice of 

playing a game the way he wants to, without gore. 

Some ask if video games have that much influence. The advertising industry is built on 30 to 60-second spots that influence what 

soft drink or car we buy, or what candidate we vote for. How, then, 

can we deny that hours of repetitive video play does not have a 

gargantuan effect on impressionable children and adolescents? 

For months after Kayce died, I was in denial. My head knew she 

was dead, but my heart believed she would walk through the back 

door again. Denying the truth does not change the truth. As a 

nurse, I am in the business of recognizing signs of illness and promoting healing, and I see an America addicted to violence and in 

denial of that addiction. It permeates our homes, playgrounds, and 

schools. We try to tell ourselves that it is somebody else’s problem, 

an isolated instance. Well, my isolated instance was 15 years old, 

with cute little dimples, and the dream of becoming a police officer. 

She had a heart, a soul, a face, and a name, Kayce Michelle Steger. 

Numbness helped me get through the first months after Kayce 

died, and frankly there are still times when I wish for the buffering 

numbness to protect me from the horrors of reality. Numbness 

helps me to function on a bad day. But when America is numb, 

more children die. Numbness prevents dealing with an issue. With 

violent video games, time is life. 

13

Studies show that one of the most common effects of violent 

interactive games is desensitization, a type of numbing. The studies since the 1960’s show that children are affected both physically 

and emotionally by the violence. One recent study shows differences measured by scanners and the brain wave after exposure 

to violence. In these games violence is sterile, acceptable, and even 

desirable. Blood on the screen has no odor. It cannot be touched. 

Screams are controlled by the volume button, and slaughter by the 

on-off button. Too often, the volume is on high. Death is repeated 

each time the restart button is touched. 

My daughter’s killer, who played ‘‘Doom’’ and ‘‘Mortal Kombat,’’

planned for months to take over the school. He dreamed of being 

in control at the loss of his classmates, and he intended to return 

to school the next day and be admired for his bravery. The game 

industry knows how to make cheap, easily produced, first-person 

games, and they market to kids who sometimes feel vulnerable 

during a time of many physical and emotional changes. The games 

promise them power and control. That is as intoxicating to some 

as drugs or alcohol. 

The industry also knows how to make a new, safer game, but it 

costs more to produce and market. It is time for a new generation 

of games that place value on human life. The United States is committed to the right to free enterprise, and I say bravo, and I say 

just as strongly hear, hear to the notion that with rights come responsibilities. 

We are suing the makers of the violent video games that so profoundly influenced Kayce, Nicole, and Jessica’s killer. Our lawsuit 

is not about free speech. It is about product liability, plain and simple. Any person or company that makes a product is responsible for 

the harm that comes from its use. The same standards hold true 

if the product influences a person to harm himself or others. Carmakers like to make cars safer partly due to product liability cases. 

Let them make games however they wish, but when they do the 

equivalent of falsely yelling fire in a crowded movie theater, they 

have to accept the moral and legal obligations for their irresponsibility. Sometimes, the best way to make a company understand 

safety and responsibility is through their pocket-books. 

A few weeks after Kayce was killed, someone suggested we 

should quit talking about the murders, forget about the lawsuit, 

and get back to normal. It is normal for us to have three children 

at the dinner table, but there are only two. When my husband and 

I should have been discussing college choices for Kayce, we were 

discussing tombstone choices. When my daughter Becky asked, 

mom, how do I be older than my big sister, I did not find any answer from Dr. Spock. The shooter took normal away from my family, as all shooters do with every victim of gun violence. 

The person who wanted us to get back to normal was saying that 

we made him uncomfortable by reminding him of something bad. 

Video game makers want us to go away, too. They do not want us 

to demand changes that might affect their bottom line. They do not 

want us to make the world better. But our children are worth it. 

I live with the fact that I was powerless to prevent Kayce’s death 

that morning. I would be letting her down, making her death even 

14

more senseless, if I did not do whatever I could to try to prevent 

the death of another child. 

I may not have much power, but the U.S. Senate does. Please 

help us prevent the death of innocent children, the victims of killers influenced by violent video games. First, ban the sale of games 

rated for mature audiences to minors. Do not let them have such 

easy access. Next, fund a public awareness campaign to educate 

Americans about the dangers of these games. As the gentleman 

said, parents do not know how bad these games are. 

And finally, help us hold accountable the makers of these dangerous products. Let accountability stand in the courtroom, and not 

be abridged by favoritism in the back rooms. Ending violence is a 

public health and a civil rights struggle. It is time to leave the comfort and stupor of denial and open our arms to balancing rights 

with responsibilities, and remedying our horrible national addiction 

to violence. 

Thank you. This is why I am here [holding picture]. 

[The prepared statement of Mrs. Steger follows:]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF MRS. SABRINA STEGER, PEDIATRICS NURSE,

LOURDES HOSPITAL, PADUCAH, KENTUCKY

I am the person you do not want to be. I live a parent’s worst nightmare. The 

nightmare does not go away and the saying that time heals all wounds is greatly 

overrated. 

On December 1, 1997 a fourteen-year-old boy took his thoughts and feelings, the 

sum total of the influences in his life, and five guns into Heath High School. After 

watching students pray, he opened fire on them. Kayce, Jessica, and Nicole died 

that day. So did this country’s belief that schools are a safe haven for its students. 

When I found out that my daughter, Kayce, might have been involved, I rushed 

back to the hospital I’ve worked at for 20 years. I had just finished a midnight shift. 

As I approached the emergency room, there were arms holding me back. 

Every time I tried to get a little closer to Kayce, arms stopped me. Those arms 

were connected to familiar-sounding voices, but the arms were trying to hold me 

back from the only thing that mattered—getting to my little girl. I still have nightmares about those arms, those obstacles keeping me away from Kayce. I am here 

today to ask you to not be an arm, an obstacle, that makes it harder for parents 

to keep their children safe. 

We believe the Heath High School shooter was influenced by the movies he 

watched, the video games he played, and the Internet sites he accessed. With his 

easy access to guns, his violent urges were allowed to take on a life outside his own 

troubled mind. 

Video games are a common form of entertainment for many young people and 

more and more often the games are violent. Even before Kayce was killed, I did not 

allow my kids to play violent games, but I did not know how big the monster was. 

It isn’t Pong or Pac-Man these kids are playing. Despite what some parents think, 

these are not the video games we played. 

Today’s games are so sophisticated that some of them even have a recoil after a 

shot is fired. They are so real that the military uses them to train soldiers. But, 

the soldiers are adult men and women, not impressionable children. And, the simulations are carefully controlled and monitored, not played whether or not there is 

adult supervision. 

Yet, the video games are as effective as the simulators. Just how deadly are they? 

The Heath High School shooter did not miss one shot. From the criminal investigation, we know he practiced only one time with the gun prior to committing murder. 

A recent case in the news involved police officers firing 41 rounds and striking one 

man with 19 shots. Less than half of the shots fired by trained policemen hit their 

target, but 100% of those fired by a teenager hit students in the kill zone, one shot 

per victim. He didn’t shoot until they fell. He learned his game all too well. 

Statistically, the average twelve-year-old has seen 8000 murders. Today I am here 

to tell you about one murder that affected one family, my family. It is being lived 

out in different stages by the families of the 13 people killed by gun violence every 

day, 365 days of the year. 

15

My son Dustin was nine when his sister was gunned down. He was at the hospital 

when she arrived. He saw Kayce taken out of the ambulance with paramedics doing 

CPR on her. He saw her lying lifeless on a stretcher a little later. He looked at his 

parents, the ones who could not protect Kayce, and wondered if they could take care 

of him. He and his sister Becky saw their home change from a place of laughter 

to a place of tears. In so many ways, they saw their own childhoods end that day. 

No more innocence, no more carefree days—their lives and futures were forever 

changed the second that the killer decided to pull the trigger. 

There are plenty of kids, who like most adults, who do not want gratuitous violence in video games. My son has a Playstation and he enjoys racing and sports 

games. For a long time, he wanted a skateboarding game. He finally got it, but he 

was quickly disappointed. The tricks are ‘‘sweet’’ (for anyone without kids, that 

means real good), but every time the skateboarder falls blood squirts. Dustin does 

not want to see the blood, but there aren’t any controls to stop it. My son who does 

not chose blood and guts does not have the choice to play the game the way he 

wants to. The game is very seldom played. 

Violent video games and movies desensitize users to the violence by making it 

sterile, acceptable and even desirable. Defilement and carnage all too prevalent on 

the silver screen is easily transferred to any home by video games seen through 

hand held screens, TV screens and computer monitors. 

Blood on the screen has no odor and it cannot be touched. Screams are controlled 

by the volume button, and slaughter by the on/off button. But, the button is too 

often ‘‘on,’’ the volume on high, and death repeated each time the restart button is 

touched. 

Some question if video games can have that much influence on young people. The 

entire advertising industry is built on the knowledge that 30 to 60 second advertisements influence what soft drink or car we buy, and what candidate we vote for. How 

can we then deny that hours on end of repetitive video game violence does not have 

a gargantuan impact on impressionable children and adolescents? 

For months after Kayce died, I was in denial. My head knew she was dead, but 

my heart did not believe it. Part of me believed that she was going to walk through 

the back door again. I was going to hug her for a week and ground her for a month. 

As a nurse I am in the business of recognizing illness and injury and being 

proactive about healing. And, I see an America both addicted to violence and in denial about this addiction. It permeates our homes, playgrounds, and schools. We try 

to tell ourselves that its somebody else’s problem, and isolated incidents. My isolated incident was 15 years old with cute little dimples and the dream of becoming 

a police officer. She had a heart, a soul, a face, and a name, Kayce Michelle Steger. 

Numbness helped me get through the first months after Kayce died and frankly, 

there are still times when I wish for the numbness. It is a buffer; it protects our 

emotions from the horrors of reality. For me, numbness helps me to function during 

a bad day. For our country, numbness allows more children to die. When we are 

numb, we don’t deal with the issue. With violent video games, time is life. 

Studies show that one of the most common effects of violent video is desensitization, a type of numbing affect. Scientific studies since the 1960s prove that kids are 

affected by the violence. One recent study even demonstrates a change in brain patterns measured by a scanner. My daughter’s killer, who played Doom and Mortal 

Kombat, planned for months to take over the school. He dreamed of being in control 

of the lives of his classmates and he intended to return to the school the next day 

to be admired for his bravery. 

The game industry knows how to make games and they know kids. They know 

that some adolescents have feelings of being vulnerable during a time of many physical and emotional changes. The games promise them power and control that is as 

intoxicating to some kids as alcohol or drugs. And just like with alcohol or drugs, 

kids deny the effects it has on them. 

The game industry also knows how to make a better game. But new games that 

are safer for children to use cost more money to produce and market. The first-person shooter game is cheap and easy and there are thousands of young kids waiting 

for a new gun to blow away more victims. It is time for a new generation of games—

a generation that places value on human life. 

As early as the 1960s we recognized the harmful effects of other adverse influences. So great was the public outcry against tobacco and alcohol it forced bans on 

TV advertising and limited availability of tobacco and alcohol products. It is time 

to raise our voices again. 

The United States is committed to the rights of free enterprise, and I say ‘‘bravo.’’

And, I say just as strongly ‘‘here, here’’ to the notion that with rights comes responsibilities. We are suing the makers of the violent video games that so profoundly 

16

influenced and warped Kayce’s, Jessica’s and Nicole’s killer. Our lawsuit is not 

about free speech. It is about product liability. Plain and simple. 

Any person or company that makes a product is responsible for the harm that 

comes from the use of the product. The same standard holds true if the product influences a person to harm himself or others. Car makers learned to make safer cars 

partly as a result of product liability cases. The same product liability standards 

that apply to any other manufacturer are the standards we expect of those who 

produce violent entertainment. 

By holding entrepreneurs of violent entertainment to the these standards we are 

taking steps to keep us all safer. Let them make games as they wish. But, when 

they do the equivalent of falsely yelling ‘‘fire’’ in a crowded movie theater, then they 

have to accept moral and legal responsibility for their irresponsibility. We do not 

ask them to conform to any standard of decency. We expect them to be accountable 

when their product cause harm to others. Sometimes, the best way to make a company understand safety and responsibility is through their pocketbooks. 

I looked into a casket and saw my little girl. There are no words that come close 

to describing how it feels. Before Kayce died, I was an Intensive Care Unit nurse, 

taking care of dying children. I tried to put myself in the parents’ place as I cried 

with them when their child’s heart wasn’t beating any more. I thought I was as 

close as I could be without losing a child of my own. I know now that I wasn’t even 

on the same planet. Nothing looks the same or feels the same after seeing your own 

child lying in a casket. 

A few months after Kayce was killed, someone suggested that we should quit talking about the murders and forget about any lawsuits and just get back to ‘‘normal.’’

It is normal for us to have three children at the dinner table, but there are only 

two. When my husband and I should have been discussing college choices for Kayce, 

we were discussing tombstone choices. When my daughter Becky asked, mom, how 

do I be older than my big sister. I didn’t find any answer from Dr. Spock. The shooter took normal away from my family, and all shooters do with every victim of gun 

violence. 

The person who wanted us to get back to normal was saying that we upset him 

and made him uncomfortable by reminding him of something bad. Video game makers want us to go away too. They don’t want us to speak out about the poison they 

put into children’s minds. They don’t want us to demand changes that might affect 

their pocketbooks. But all of our children are worth more than any bottom line. I 

live with the fact that I was powerless to prevent Kayce’s death that morning. I 

would be letting her down, making her death more senseless if I didn’t do whatever 

I could to try to prevent the death of another child. 

They say that losing a child is the ultimate tragedy. Its even worse when the 

senseless death of a child shows us nothing and allows the senseless death of another little girl and another little boy. 

I may not have much power, but the United States Senate does. Let accountability stand on its own merits in the court room, and not be abridged by favoritism 

in the back rooms. Please help us prevent the death of innocent children, the victims of killers influenced by violent video games.

• First, ban the sale of these games to minors. 

• Next, fund a public awareness campaign to educate Americans about the dangers of these games. 

• And finally, help us hold accountable the makers of these dangerous products.

Ending violence as we know it is both a public health and a civil rights struggle. 

It is time to leave the comfort and stupor of denial. It is time to heal, and in doing 

so, open our arms to balancing rights with responsibilities, and remedying our horrible national addiction to violence.

Senator BROWNBACK. Thank you for sharing that powerful testimony of a difficult situation for you and your family. We deeply appreciate your willingness to come here today and to share that with 

us. 

Our final witness on this panel is Miss Danielle Shimotakahara 

from North Bend, Oregon. Danielle is, I believe, 12-years-old, and 

has started her own campaign dealing with violent video games. 

Danielle, we would love to have you testify. If you could get those 

microphones up right next to your mouth, it is pretty directional, 

so you need to talk right into it. 

17

STATEMENT OF MISS DANIELLE SHIMOTAKAHARA, STUDENT, 

NORTH BEND, OREGON 

Miss SHIMOTAKAHARA. On the day of the Columbine massacre in 

April 1999, I came home from school and told my mom about the 

graphically violent video games that are at pizza parlors, bowling 

alleys, skating rinks, and other places where kids hang out. I told 

her that I did not think that little kids should be playing them. I 

asked her what we could do to get rid of them. 

I felt that a petition signed by kids might influence businesses 

to move or replace them with nonviolent ones. I designed a petition 

to get rid of violent video games in places where children hang out. 

I brought my mom to see these games because she had never seen 

them. She was shocked. She helped me with the design for a petition. She helped me do research about violence in the media and 

on electronic games. I made a bibliography and put it with the petition. 

I think these types of games are disgusting. Kids as young as 3 

years old can use mounted guns to shoot people to pieces and 

watch blood splatter on the screen. Kids get points for killing people. Parents eat pizza while their kids blow somebody up. I have 

friends who play them. Their eyes look crazy when they play them, 

and they get excited when the blood splatters and parts of bodies 

fly. 

On some machines they can make choices about what type of gun 

to use. I think it teaches kids bad things. Some older kids can get 

bad ideas from it, and little kids can have nightmares. I think it 

is important to keep these types of coin-operated video machines 

away from the eyes and hands of children. I do not think these 

games are entertainment. I do not think it is entertaining for a kid 

to eat pizza or a hot dog and watch someone kill someone on a 

gaming machine. 

These machines are almost everywhere that kids go. I think it 

is important to especially keep little kids away from them, because 

they do not know whether they are real or not. Little kids still believe in Santa Claus. Psychological research says that children 

under the age of 7 do not know the difference between fantasy and 

reality. 

I think it gives a message to older kids that it is okay to kill people. The killer is the hero even if he is killing policemen. Kids identify with the hero. Kids play them so many times they become desensitized to seeing blood or bodies exploding. The more people 

they explode, the more blood spattering they see in some games. 

They are also learning conditioning, when they shoot guns at people and get points for it. 

I think it is sad that they are laughing while they are doing it. 

The boy who did the killing in Arkansas a few years ago learned 

to shoot a gun by playing these types of games. He had excellent 

marksmanship. I think that it teaches some kids to be violent, and 

I think a few of those kids will think about acting it out on innocent people. Others actually might be influenced to do it. I think 

it is the same as selling alcohol, drugs, pornography, or tobacco to 

kids. 

These video machines are similar to the ones that are used to 

train police officers and the military. Parents are not always with 

18

older kids to see what they are playing, and so a lot of kids do not 

know, and I think they need to know. I became even more inspired 

later in May when I read that Disney removed its violent video 

games from its arcades, and my mother saved the article to show 

people. 

I think everyone needs to be educated on the potentially harmful 

effects of these machines on kids. Little kids get nightmares from 

playing these games. I had an educational table at Children’s 

Health Carnival on March 10. One kid who was probably 8 or 9 

says he likes playing these games, but he also gets nightmares 

from them. 

Violent blood-spattering gun-mounted coin-operated video games 

are almost everywhere young children go. I feel these machines are 

a bad influence on young children. Children climb on chairs or get 

on footstools to use them at pizza parlors, skating rinks, and movie 

theaters. 

Mom and I watched a 3-year-old girl splatter blood on one of 

these machines at a pizza parlor while the babysitter helped her 

balance on the footstool. She was holding a mounted gun, and 

when she missed the mother hollered from the table, ‘‘Aim higher 

next time.’’ I told my mom that the babysitter should be fired, and 

she said, ‘‘I think the parent should be fired.’’ We talked to the 

mom about how dangerous it is to expose little kids to this violence, and I think she understands now. 

I want people to learn and think about these machines. I know 

that a lot of parents did not even know that these types of games 

were being played by their kids until I started this petition. Parents do not go into the game room at pizza parlors. They just give 

out the quarters and eat their pizza with other parents. Every parent should go in the game room and check out what games are 

there. It makes you feel sick just to watch them. I get cards and 

letters and phone calls from parents telling me that they threw out 

violent software video games when they heard about my petition. 

The petition is not a valid petition because it contains the names 

of both children and adults. Some are 5 years old. They can hardly 

print. They print in very large letters. Their big printing makes an 

even bigger statement. I believe that this is our voice as children. 

There are 3,000 to 4,000 signatures on the petition, and people and 

kids are still signing it. We are young, and we cannot vote, but we 

can express our opinions in this way. 

The project is going to continue for a long time, because it is really hard to convince some people about the dangers. Some will not 

even listen. Some parents do not think it is harmful for a child to 

make blood splatter and body parts explode. I do not understand 

why they think it is okay to do this killing. 

It takes a lot of time to make a change, and I discovered that 

some people can be very stubborn and refuse to listen when they 

are making a lot of money from something, even if that something 

is not a good thing. I learned that wording is important on a petition. The petition states, ‘‘We are asking businesses to voluntarily 

remove these machines.’’ Until a law is passed, a business needs 

to make its own decision. 

Teresa Sherwood, the owner of Dave’s Pizza in North Bend, Oregon, said that she was having trouble getting the business that 

19

she leased her violent machines from to come and take it away. 

She said, ‘‘I had to be persistent to get nonviolent ones. He said 

that he only had a few nonviolent ones and they were in other 

places.’’ She said, ‘‘After your petition came around, I got pushy. I 

told him my patience was gone and he had to come and get it. It 

sat there for a month unplugged before he came for it.’’ She said that she had not noticed any change in the amount of 

business that she gets since she took out the violent ones, and 

there are still lots of kids there. She said, ‘‘The kids loved the new 

basketball one. They go crazy over it.’’ Some business owners told 

me that they would lose money if they took them out, but her story 

proves otherwise. 

More parents now pay attention to the video games that their 

kids play. Some businesses moved them into an adult area or 

turned them off. One businessman said that he would not renew 

the lease for his machine. I think that all of society will benefit and 

the world will be a better place when these machines are not in 

places where kids go to eat and play. 

Some of these machines include Area 51, with two mounted 

guns, all the Mortal Kombat machines, where they use their fists 

to make body parts splatter, Police Trainer, where they use sniper 

rifles and two mounted guns and look through a scope, CarnEvil, 

that uses two mounted shotguns, and Silent Scope, where they use 

mounted sniper guns and sneak up on ordinary people and shoot 

them for no reason. 

I think that it would be a good idea for Senators to go to a place 

like an arcade or a pizza parlor and try out these machines so you 

know what they do. If you feel too embarrassed to go by yourself, 

offer to bring your teenager or a close friend’s son or daughter to 

play or watch a violent video blood splatterer. You will see firsthand what it is all about. 

I took my petition to the Oregon State Senate, where 29 out of 

30 Oregon State Senators signed it. Senator Veral Tarno invited 

me to the Senate, where I spoke to the Judiciary Committee. I presented the petition to city councils, churches, and civic officials. 

Resolutions were written and passed as a result. The Oregon-Idaho 

Conference of United Methodist Churches passed two resolutions, 

and one will go to the National Conference in Cleveland in June. 

Coos Bay passed Resolution 99–18. Oregon State Senator Veral 

Tarno is presently working on a draft for legislation regarding violent video gaming machines. 

My project involves other activities: an educational play on video 

game violence that I am going to work on with my church youth 

group, lapel buttons, and a Cool-No-Violence window/door sticker 

that I designed for businesses that do not allow children access to 

these types of machines. This sticker is like the No Smoking sticker, except it has a violent video game image on it and a slash 

across it with the words, Cool-No-Violence, and C-NO-V. I designed 

it and Fran Holland, who is a local graphic artist, further developed it on her computer. I had a donation for a few tee-shirt transfers for the Cool-No-Violence logo. 

It is a controversial issue. I have been called names. Some business owners got very angry. They said that they make money from 

these machines and they do not want to lose money. It is not an 

20

easy project. It is really hard to do, but I think it is important, and 

maybe there will be fewer kids thinking that they should kill somebody. 

I would tell other young people that it was a really good thing 

to do. If you feel something needs to be changed to make society 

safer and better, you can do it. It is a lot of hard work, but it pays 

off. Do not think just because you are young people will not listen 

to you. I discovered that adults do respect us as kids. 

I strongly feel that young children should not be exposed to these 

types of games, and that if a business wants to have them, they 

should put them in an area of their business that restricts access 

by young children to playing them, as well as seeing someone else 

play them. 

[The prepared statement of Miss Shimotakahara follows:]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF MISS DANIELLE SHIMOTAKAHARA, STUDENT,

NORTH BEND, OREGON

My name is Danielle Shimotakahara and I am 12 years old. 

On the day of the Columbine massacre in April of 1999, I came home from school 

and told my Mom about the graphically violent video games that are at pizza parlors, bowling alleys, skating rinks and other places where kids hang out. I told her 

that I didn’t think that little kids should be playing them. I asked her what we 

could do to get rid of them. I felt that a petition signed by kids might influence businesses to remove or replace them with nonviolent ones. I designed a petition to get 

rid of violent video games in places where children hang out. I brought my Mom 

to see these games, because she had never seen them. She was shocked. She helped 

me with the design for a petition. She helped me do research about violence in the 

media and in electronic games. I made a bibliography and I put it with the petition. 

I think these types of games are disgusting. Kids as young as three years old can 

use mounted guns to shoot people to pieces and watch blood splatter on the screen. 

Kids get points for killing people. Parents eat pizza while their kids blow somebody 

up. I have friends who play them. Their eyes look crazy when they play them and 

they get excited when the blood splatters and parts of bodies fly in pieces. On some 

machines, they can make choices about which type of gun to use. I think it teaches 

kids bad things. Some older kids can get bad ideas from it, and little kids can have 

nightmares. I think it is important to keep these types of killer coin-operated video 

machines away from the eyes and hands of children. I don’t think these games are 

entertainment. I don’t think it is entertaining for a kid to eat pizza or a hot dog 

and watch a person kill somebody on a gaming machine. These machines are almost 

everywhere that kids go. I think it is important to especially keep little kids away 

from them, because they don’t know whether they are real or not real. Little kids 

still believe in Santa Claus. Psychological research says that children under the age 

of seven do not know the difference between fantasy and reality. 

I think it gives a message to older kids that it is O.K. to kill people. The killer 

is the hero, even if he is killing policemen. Kids identify with the hero. Kids play 

them so many times that they become desensitized to seeing blood or bodies exploding. The more people that they explode, the more blood splattering, they see in some 

games. They are also learning conditioning when they shoot guns at people and get 

points for it. I think it is sad that they are laughing while they are doing it. The 

boy who did the killing in Arkansas a few years ago learned to shoot a gun by playing these types of games. He had excellent marksmanship. I think that it teaches 

some kids to be violent, and I think a few of those kids will think about acting out 

that violence on innocent people. Others actually might be influenced to do it. I 

think it is the same as selling alcohol, drugs, pornography, or tobacco to kids. 

These video machines are similar to the ones that are used to train police officers 

and the military. Parents are not always with older kids to see what they are playing so a lot of parents don’t know, and I think they need to know. I became even 

more inspired later in May when I read that Disney removed its violent video games 

from its arcades and my mother saved that article to show to people. I think everyone needs to be educated on the potentially harmful effects of these machines on 

kids. Little kids get nightmares from playing these games. I had an educational 

table at a Children’s Health Carnival on March 10. One kid who was probably eight 

21

or nine says he likes playing these games, but he also said he got nightmares from 

them. 

Violent blood splattering gun mounted coin operated video games are almost everywhere young children go. I feel these machines are a bad influence on young children. Children climb onto chairs or get up on footstools to use them at pizza parlors, 

skating rinks, movie theaters. Mom and I watched a three year old girl splattering 

blood on one of these machines at a pizza parlor while the babysitter helped her 

balance on the footstool. She was holding a mounted gun, and when she missed, the 

mother hollered from the table, ‘‘Aim higher next time.’’ I told my Mom that the 

babysitter should be fired and she said, ‘‘I think the parent should be fired.’’ We 

talked to the Mom about how dangerous it is to expose little kids to this violence 

and I think she understands, now. 

I want people to learn and think about these machines. I know that a lot of parents didn’t even know that these types of games were being played by their kids 

until I started this petition. Parents don’t go in the game room at pizza parlors. 

They just give out the quarters and eat their pizza with other parents. Every parent 

should go in the game room and check out what games are there. It makes you feel 

sick just to watch them. I get cards and letters and phone calls from parents telling 

me that they threw out violent software video games when they heard about my 

petition. 

The petition is not a valid petition because it contains the names of both children 

and adults. Some are five years old. They can hardly print. They print in very large 

letters. Their big printing makes an even bigger statement. I believe that this is our 

voice as children. There are 3000–4000 signatures on the petition and people and 

kids are still signing it. We are young and we can’t vote but we can express our 

opinions in this way. 

I discovered that a lot of kids that I thought were playing these games were surprisingly not playing them. One of those was a boy in my school, Jack Rabin, who 

later helped me do a presentation to a City Council meeting. I definitely learned 

not to judge people by what I had heard about them from others. You have to meet 

and talk with them, yourself. I realized that it is easier to prevent younger kids 

from playing these machines than it is teenagers, because teenagers have been playing them for a long time. I determined that parents have to be involved in what 

their kids are doing, and that kids need to have limits, even though we sometimes 

disagree. 

The project is going to continue for a long time, because it is really hard to convince some people about the dangers. Some won’t even listen. Some parents don’t 

think it is harmful for a child to make blood splatter and body parts explode. I don’t 

understand why they think it is OK to do this killing. It takes a lot of time to make 

a change and I discovered that some people can be very stubborn and refuse to listen when they are making a lot of money from something, even if that something 

is not a good thing. I learned that wording is important on a petition. The petition 

states, ‘‘we are voluntarily asking businesses to remove these machines.’’ Until a 

law is passed, a business needs to make its own decision. 

Teresa Sherwood the owner of Dave’s Pizza in North Bend, Oregon said that she 

was having trouble getting the business that she leased her violent machine from 

to come and take it away. She said, ‘‘I had to be persistent to get nonviolent ones. 

He said that he only had a few nonviolent ones and they were in other places.’’ She 

said, ‘‘After your petition came around, I got pushy. I told him my patience was 

gone, and to come and get it. It sat there for a month unplugged, before he came 

for it.’’ She said that she has not noticed any change in the amount of business that 

she gets since she took out the violent ones, and there are still lots of kids there. 

She said, ‘‘The kids love the new basketball one. They go crazy over it.’’ Some business owners told me that they would lose money if they took them out, but her story 

proves otherwise. 

More parents now pay attention to the video games that their kids play. Some 

businesses moved them to an adult area or turned them off. One business said that 

he would not renew the lease for his machine. I think that all of society will benefit 

and the world will be a better place when these machines are not in places where 

kids go to eat and play. 

Some of these machines include Area 51 with two mounted guns, all the Mortal 

Kombat machines where they use their fists to make body parts splatter, Police 

Trainer where they use sniper rifles and two mounted guns and look through a 

scope, Carnevil that uses two mounted shotguns, Silent Scope where they use 

mounted sniper guns and sneak up on ordinary people and shoot them for no reason. I think that it would be a good idea for Senators to go to a place like an arcade 

or a pizza parlor, etc. and try out these machines so you know what they do. If you 

feel too embarrassed to go by yourself, offer to bring your teenager or a close friend’s 

22

son or daughter to play or watch a violent video blood splatterer. You will see first 

hand what it is all about. 

The project is still ongoing and I still have more educating to do. With the help 

of many organizations, I have been working with the Southwestern Oregon Medical 

Society Alliance to raise more than $8000 to bring an internationally recognized 

speaker to the area to speak on this issue on April 24, 25, and 26. I will be appearing with this speaker as he does presentations at seven middle schools. He will also 

speak at parent, student, mental health professional, and police groups, and for the 

general public. The speaker will be Lt. Col. David Grossman, an expert on TV, 

movie and video game violence. I will answer questions on a radio call in show with 

him as well. 

I took my petition to the Oregon State Senate where 29 out of 30 Oregon State 

Senators signed it. Senator Veral Tarno invited me to the Senate, where I spoke 

to the Judiciary Committee. I presented the petition to city councils, churches and 

civic officials. Resolutions were written and passed as a result. The Oregon-Idaho 

Conference of United Methodist Churches passed two resolutions and one will go to 

the National Conference in Cleveland in June. Coos Bay passed Resolution 99–18. 

Oregon State Senator Veral Tarno is presently working on a draft for legislation regarding violent video gaming machines. 

My project involves other activities—an educational play on video game violence 

that I am going to work on with my church youth group, lapel buttons, and a CoolNo-Violence window/door sticker that I designed for businesses that do not allow 

children access to these types of machines. This sticker is like the No Smoking sticker except it has a violent video game image on it and a slash across it with the 

words, Cool-No-Violence and C-NO-V on it. I designed it and Fran Holland, who is 

a local graphic artist further developed it on her computer. I had a donation for a 

few tee-shirt transfers for the Cool-No-Violence logo. I gave one to Bishop Paup at 

the church conference where there were more than 900 delegates. I read a quote 

from Martin Luther King Jr. about peaceful means to achieve peaceful ends. I have 

no more Tee-shirts but I will pay for the other materials by putting my clothing on 

consignment. A local business, concerned with the health of children, may sponsor 

the making of Tee-shirts that have this logo on them. 

The local newspaper in Coos Bay called The World, has been covering this peace 

project on the front page and a recent editorial discussed it. Education Week and 

Guideposts for Kids also interviewed me for an article. The Oregonian newspaper 

will have an article on it today, March 21. 

I just received the Prudential Spirit of the Community Award as the top Oregon 

Middle School Volunteer for 2000. My project was chosen from 20,000 applications 

and I get to come back to Washington, D.C., where I will meet 103 other honorees 

and participate in national recognition events in May for four days. One event will 

be a Congressional breakfast. I just found out my project has also been selected as 

a finalist for another award chosen from 100,000 applications from 99 countries. 

It is a controversial issue. I have been called names. Some business owners got 

very angry. They said that they make money from these machines and they don’t 

want to lose money. It is not an easy project. It is really hard to do this, but I think 

it is important and maybe there will be fewer kids thinking that they should kill 

somebody. I would tell other young people that it was a really good thing to do and 

if you feel something needs to be changed to make society safer and better, you can 

do it. It is a lot of hard work but it pays off. Don’t think just because you are young, 

people won’t listen to you. I discovered that adults do respect us as kids. 

I strongly feel that young children should not be exposed to these types of games 

and that if a business wants to have them, they should put them in an area of their 

business that restricts access by young children to playing them as well as seeing 

someone else play them. 

Added written Testimony of Danielle Shimotakahara, age 12, to the members of the United States Senate Commerce Committee on Science and 

Transportation on March 21, 2000. 

This is a list of some of the commonly found coin operated violent blood splattering video games in public places that I know about.

CarnEvil—Mounted guns and blood and body exploding. The head comes off 

first when you shoot, then the characters walk around with their heads off and 

after 5 or so more shots they explode. Many of the characters are covered in 

blood. It is a two player shooter. CarnEvil is in a movie theater lobby in my 

hometown. It has an advertisement that says ‘‘CarnEvil is more than just the 

scariest shooter around, it’s an awesome cinematic experience . . . the most 

frighteningly realistic first person shooter ever unleashed on the living.’’ Tort 

23

and Rodz are two characters ‘‘plucked from the most vile insane asylums . . . 

their urge to kill is fueled by self-torture-making them almost unstoppable.’’

Police Trainer has sniper rifles. There is no negotiation, and the police just 

shoot everybody. There are 2 mounted guns and a scope. 

Lethal Enforcers—You leave different kinds of bullet holes in your victims. 

Female hostages who plead ‘‘help me’’ too often are shot. 

The House of the Dead and House of the Dead 2—These are called light gun 

games. You have a handgun and it is important to do head shots to kill your 

victim. Bodies lose their limbs, heads and chests and they also can have gaping 

wounds that you can see through. 

Silent Scope has a mounted sniper gun with a scope. You sneak up on people 

and shoot ordinary people for no reason. When you kill, blood splatters everywhere. You get extra points if you shoot your victims in the head. 

Time Crisis and Time Crisis 2—This has a realistic recoil action gun. Guns 

make sounds like real gun sounds. It is 3D. 

Mortal Kombat series, Mortal Kombat Ultimate—This has joysticks. You use 

your fists and legs and feet. Bodies explode blood when you hit them. Mortal 

Kombat Ultimate says on the screen—‘‘There is no Knowledge that is not 

Power.’’ Does that mean that if you know how to kill someone, then you will 

have power? 

Area 51—This one has 2 mounted guns. Bodies explode and blood splatters 

on the screen. The gunfire sounds realistic. 

Steel Gunner 2—This one has mounted guns. Bodies are blown in half, arms 

fly off, blood splatters and a charred lower body remains on the screen.

Games like Doom, Quake, Blood, Resident Evil, Carmaggedon and Duke Nukem 

all shoot people to pieces. Eating the corpses of soldiers happens in one software 

game. Duke Nukem has nearly naked women who ask to be killed. They combine 

sex and violence. They have people with sexy bodies blowing one another up, and 

getting power because of it. Men and women in hardly any clothing fight one another. 

Carmaggedon, which is also a coin-op game was banned in Brazil, because it 

caused road rage. You get points for killing pedestrians with your car. A girl wearing a bikini will splatter on the windshield. You can chase an old man who walks 

with a cane and hunt humans with your car. Pedestrians scream and blood splatters. 

My Mom and I were at a pizza place taking notes on these machines when two 

8 year boys, that we knew came up to play. My Mom and I had just used Steel Gunner 2 to see what it would do and she said out loud ‘‘This one makes bodies explode.’’ The kid said ‘‘Cool.’’ My Mom asked him if he really said ‘‘cool’’ and he said 

‘‘yes.’’ Then she said, ‘‘So you think it is cool to blow somebody to pieces and watch 

the blood splatter everywhere? He got really quiet. Then his mother came rushing 

around the corner, and said—‘‘No, you are not playing that one.’’ She said that she 

did not know about these games until my petition and now she is watching for them 

everywhere. She said that if you turn your back for a minute, they are playing 

them, and she was ordering a pizza. His mother said she saw a father playing 

CarnEvil with his young son, that evening in the lobby of the movie theater as they 

were waiting for a movie to start. Another boy who was maybe 10 came by later, 

and he didn’t have any money. He went to the Steel Gunner 2 and just stood there 

looking at the screen. He held the gun in his hand for 5 minutes, just watching the 

screen. I think it must be really hard for parents, because these games are everywhere. I think these kids feel they have power when they hold the guns. I think 

they get addicted to them, and they want to do it more and more. 

I am going to ask city councils to start work on passing ordinances so that these 

machines will not be seen or used by young children in places where we hang out. 

Another problem is that the violent games are often right beside basketball or car 

racing games. When you play a car racing game, and someone plays a violent one 

beside you, you still see the blood splatter on their screen. 

On March 28, I spoke to the North Bend City Council. They gave me an award 

for the work I am doing to make everyone aware of these machines and for trying 

to figure out a way to get rid of them in public places. 

I asked the mayor and the City Council to help me. I told them about the Entertainment Software Ratings Board. I asked them to figure out a way to enforce those 

ratings. Area 51 and Ultimate Mortal Kombat are rated M, meaning 17 and up. I 

don’t think anyone should be using these machines, but there must be a way to enforce the present ratings, so at least little kids can’t see or play them. 

The ESRB does not always rate these games properly, so I think they need to 

work on that. A software one called DeerAvenger is rated T, which is 13 and up. 

24

The deer hunt humans and use an M–16 to blow hunters to pieces. The assistant 

manager at my local Wal-Mart said that people and parents keep bringing that one 

back because there is pornography in it. 

I am asking people to start writing letters to their mayors, city councillors, newspapers, and government officials about these violent games and they are doing that. 

I was the guest speaker at a banquet for Court Appointed Special Advocates for children. They are volunteers that speak in court for abused children. I told them about 

these games and they were surprised. They wanted to know where they could find 

them. They gasped when I told them about bodies exploding and blood splattering. 

Parents and others really don’t know but they are learning. 

In conclusion,

1. I think the ratings by the ESRB need to be made stricter. 

2. Until the ratings are made stricter, I think City Councils need to enforce 

the present ESRB ratings, because that would at least prevent some kids from 

playing or seeing some of the violent ones. 

3. I think these games are not good or useful for anyone. 

4. I think everyone needs to learn and become educated about the harmful 

effects of these games (machines) on kids. 

5. I think people should try one or two of these games or watch somebody 

else play them to see what they do. 

6. I think people should call or write lawmakers, mayors, etc. and express 

their opinions about these violent blood splattering games/machines.

Senator BROWNBACK. Thank you very much, Danielle, for your 

testimony, for giving up your spring break to come here, but more 

importantly, for your heart, for getting out and taking that petition 

forward. I hope you get 3 million signatures on it. I think it is very 

possible. 

There are a number of Senators on the panel with us. Senator 

Dorgan has another committee mark-up he has to go to, so I would 

like to give the floor to Senator Dorgan first, then when we go to 

questions, we will run the 5-minute clock. Senator Dorgan. 

STATEMENT OF HON. BYRON L. DORGAN,

U.S. SENATOR FROM NORTH DAKOTA 

Senator DORGAN. Mr. Chairman, Thank you very much. I have 

an Appropriations Subcommittee meeting that started at 10, and I 

regret that I must go to that at this point, but I wanted to just 

make a brief comment or two. 

First, Senator Brownback, let me thank you for holding this 

hearing. We have been involved, I guess I have been involved about 

seven years here in the U.S. Senate in hearings on the subject of 

television violence, and I have introduced legislation, worked on 

the V chip and a range of things with Senator Kerry and others, 

but this is an important issue, the issue you raise about violence. 

Violence on television—violence on interactive games—is an important issue. 

Mrs. Steger, I know the pain of losing a child, and I can barely 

speak about it, and the strength that you have demonstrated, coming to the Senate and bringing to life the memory of your daughter, 

and a description of that tragedy, and describing the things you 

think should be done to avoid tragedies like it in the future is quite 

remarkable, and I want to thank you for being willing to do that, 

and to share that story with the U.S. Senate. 

Danielle, thank you for coming here from Oregon and taking 

your time to appear, and thank you for the spunk and the energy 

you describe, and the efforts you are making. 

Dr. Walsh, I appreciate your testimony. Just as with the subject 

of television violence, in my judgment, there is no question—there 

25

is no question at all any longer of whether this kind of excessive 

violence that is projected to our children affects their behavior. Yes, 

of course it does. Of course it does. 

We had the study of this community in Canada that for some unusual reasons was unable to get television for some time. Almost 

a couple of decades before, the rest of the surrounding communities 

had television, and comparing the children in that community with 

the other communities showed a dramatic difference in aggressive 

behavior. Why? Because one was subject to a steady diet of violence 

suggesting that grownups solve their problems by shooting each 

other, stabbing each other, and hitting each other. 

We should be able to entertain adults in our country without 

hurting our children, and that is the question here. With respect 

to the excessive violence in television programming, yes, that still 

exists, with excessive violence in some areas, and also these interactive games. 

I have children who—well, let me rephrase it. It is very hard to 

be a parent and be vigilant all the time, watching what is coming 

into your living room on that television set, and watching these 

video games, and so people say, well, this is none of anybody’s business except the parents. Well, that is not true at all. 

Yes, it is the parents’ business first, and there is no substitute 

for good parenting. That is certainly true, no substitute for good 

parenting, but it is almost impossible for the best parents in our 

country to try to create a curtain beyond which this excessive culture of violence is not permeating the lives of our wonderful children. 

So again, Senator Brownback, I spoke longer than I intended, 

but these are important issues. They are issues we cannot and 

should not ignore. Difficult, yes. Do they involve questions people 

will relate to with censorship and so on? Yes. These are all difficult 

questions, but all of us want to protect children in this country. We 

have the right, it seems to me, to expect that we can protect our 

children, and we also have the right, as Mrs. Steger said, to hope 

and believe that when we send our children to school we are sending our children to safe places of learning, not places where someone will come with guns and destroy our childrens’ lives. 

So let me again thank you for the hearing, and thanks to the witnesses. I apologize that I cannot stay for the entire hearing. I really 

would like to do that. Mr. Chairman, thank you. 

Senator BROWNBACK. Thank you, Senator Dorgan. Thank you for 

your leadership on this topic for a long period of time. I think we 

are going to start getting into some of the nuts and bolts of what 

we can do to move this debate forward, and we need to begin that 

now. I have some questions for the panelists. As I said, we will go 

through 5 minutes of questions for each of the Members. 

Dr. Walsh, I have been very disappointed, as I stated at the outset, that the industry would not come forward and testify. I am curious, have you had direct discussions with the video game industry about these video games, and how did they respond to you 

about these violent products that they are putting out? 

Dr. WALSH. Senator, we at the National Institute on Media and 

the Family have published the annual video and computer game 

report card each of the last 4 years, and at the conclusion of that 

26

report card we always make recommendations as to things that we 

think could be improved, and that has brought us into fairly regular dialog with the industry. 

The industry representatives that I talk to deny that there is any 

causal link, that there is any harmful effect. 

Senator BROWNBACK. Have they studied this? Have they commissioned studies to find that out, or do they just deny it? 

Dr. WALSH. Not that I am aware of. When there is, when there 

is something in print that kind of speaks to their side—for example, there is a theory that some people will sometimes write about 

and which I like to call the catharsis hypothesis, which basically 

says that actually these games are helpful, because it helps kids 

drain off this aggressive energy. It is a theory, but there is absolutely no research to back it up. All of the research in terms of the 

catharsis hypothesis actually goes in the opposite direction. 

And so when people write about those things, they share that information, but in terms of hard research showing there is no effect, 

one of the difficulties with research is that it is very difficult to get 

it done. It is very difficult to get it funded. This is very quickly advancing technology. I mean, literally the game processing, or the 

power of the game processors, is jumping by light years from 

month to month. 

Senator BROWNBACK. You made a statement that we will just 

around the corner have virtual reality experiences in these games, 

so that we will be, what, in a surround-sound room? 

Dr. WALSH. 3-D. Holographics. 

Senator BROWNBACK. We will be able to use chain saws on people 

with virtual reality? 

Dr. WALSH. The stated goal of the industry is virtual reality experience, and technologically they are making wonderful progress 

and a lot of the good game producers are producing very good 

games. 

Senator BROWNBACK. Will it be likely those virtual reality experiences will involve killing? 

Dr. WALSH. Well, if past history is any indication, yes, they will. 

With the new gaming platforms that are coming out, the Sega 

Dreamcast which came out last September—if I could just share 

some numbers to give the Senators an idea, the power of a game 

is measured in processing polygons per second. The polygon is the 

little picture element, the pixel that makes up the picture. 

If we were meeting this time last year, a Nintendo 64 was kind 

of the state-of-the-art. It processed 350,000 polygons per second. 

The Sega Dreamcast came out in September. It processes 3 million 

polygons per second. Sony Play Station 2, which was released in 

Tokyo on March 4, processes 66 million polygons per second, and 

Bill Gates announced 2 weeks ago that the X-box that Microsoft is 

producing and will release in 2001, processes 150 million polygons 

per second, so the technical advances are just absolutely staggering. 

Senator BROWNBACK. Do we know what the impact would be of 

a virtual reality killing spree game on a person’s—— Dr. WALSH. We can hypothesize. We do not really know, because 

we are unable to do the research, because it does not exist. What 

we do know from some of the research, and you are going to hear 

27

from some of the best researchers in the country in a couple of minutes, is that these things do have an effect. 

Some of the research we have done at the National Institute on 

Media and the Family, what I think is interesting and important, 

is that not everybody reacts the same. What we found is that it is 

kids who are already angry and hostile who get the biggest effect 

from these games, and they get more angry and hostile. So it seems 

that one of the things that happens with research is, if you take 

a look at all kids, that a lot of the effects get masked because different kids have different reactions. As we get more sophisticated, 

we have to develop the ability to figure out which kids are most 

likely to be affected. 

Senator BROWNBACK. Very interesting. 

Mrs. Steger, again, thank you for your testimony, and I know it 

is a very difficult thing to relive here, as I am sure you relive it 

many times every day, what you and your family went through. Do 

you think Michael Carneal’s immersion in violent entertainment 

contributed to his murderous actions? 

Mrs. STEGER. Yes. Plain and simple, yes, I do. 

Senator BROWNBACK. Why do you say that? 

Mrs. STEGER. Based on all of what we have understood, he did 

spend a lot of time doing that, and he spent—he came from a twoparent home. He did not have any socioeconomic disadvantages. 

You know, it is like, how do you blame a lot of other things that 

we want to blame kids. We want to say kids are angry because 

they are not intelligent, they do not have a good home, they do not 

have this or that. Well, this killer had all of those things, so it 

came from some place else. 

Senator BROWNBACK. Danielle, you said in your testimony, that 

parents do not know their kids are playing these games. Is that 

what you found out as you carried your petition around? 

Miss SHIMOTAKAHARA. Yes. Most parents do not know what their 

kids do when they go into the arcades. They just sit there, give out 

the quarters, do whatever they want and their kids go off and do 

whatever. 

Senator BROWNBACK. You said in your testimony, too, that when 

some of these kids come away from playing these games they look 

really different. Could you describe that for me? 

Miss SHIMOTAKAHARA. Well, when they play them they are focused on that. Nothing else matters. Nothing else is happening, 

just the game. That is all there is, and when they come away from 

it, sometimes that is all they think about. Like in school, they do 

not focus on school. They think about going home and playing their 

game. 

Senator BROWNBACK. Are your friends and classmates ever 

stopped from buying a violent video game? 

Miss SHIMOTAKAHARA. Because of my petition? 

Senator BROWNBACK. No, when they go to a store to buy a video 

game, are they ever stopped from buying a violent one? 

Miss SHIMOTAKAHARA. I only think they would be if their parents 

say that they cannot buy that. I think if it was up to them, they 

would probably buy whatever they could. 

Senator BROWNBACK. What is the most popular video games that 

kids are playing? 

28

Miss SHIMOTAKAHARA. I have seen most people play Area 51. I 

think that is one of the most popular ones. 

Senator BROWNBACK. Do you think violent video games affect the 

students that you know? 

Miss SHIMOTAKAHARA. I think that they do not care when they 

are playing the games, and there are a lot more wanting to fight. 

They want to argue. They do not want to just have a nice conversation. 

Senator BROWNBACK. Thank you. Senator Kerry, thank you very 

much for being here today. 

Senator KERRY. Well, Mr. Chairman, thank you very much for 

having this hearing on a topic that is obviously deeply troubling to 

a lot of people. It has got a lot of question marks out there, but 

I think common sense sort of dictates to a lot of us what Mrs. 

Steger has been saying and what Danielle has been saying. Thank 

you, both of you, for your testimonies. It is terrific to have you 

here, and I know very difficult for you, Mrs. Steger. 

Paducah, as Columbine and others, has sort of become seared in 

all of our consciousness in this country and, unfortunately there 

are more lamentations than there are substantive actions that 

somehow really make a difference, and I think that troubles all of 

us, which is obviously one of the reasons for this hearing. 

Danielle, let me ask you a couple of questions, if I can. Have you 

played some of these violent games? 

Miss SHIMOTAKAHARA. I have not played them for fun, but I have 

gone into pizza parlors to see what they actually do. I have played 

them to see, like, first-hand what you have to do, but I have not 

played them out of fun. 

Senator KERRY. And when you say you have not played them for 

fun, did you have an initial sort of reaction to them, that you just 

did not like them, or did they disturb you? What was it about these 

games that made you make this conscious sort of, they are not fun, 

I do not want to do them for fun? 

Miss SHIMOTAKAHARA. Well, I have just found better things to do 

than play video games so I never really played them before, and 

I was never really around them, so I never really liked them. 

Senator KERRY. Now, would you say that most of your friends 

who play them, do they play by and large in the pizza parlors and 

various places where they can find these machines in public, or do 

they play them more on their own computers privately at home? 

Miss SHIMOTAKAHARA. Well, I have some friends who mainly 

play them in the pizza parlors, and they play some of the games 

on their computers, but I would say they mainly play them in public areas. 

Senator KERRY. Well, it seems to me that that is sort of a key 

here, which I will mention in a minute. 

Dr. Walsh, I was very interested in your testimony, which I read, 

and I am sorry I was not here, but you draw the conclusion that 

at-risk teens perform more poorly in school. At-risk teens name 

more violent games as their three favorite video games. At-risk 

teens get into arguments with parents, peers, and teachers more 

frequently than general teens, and among boys only, at-risk boys 

are less likely to say they usually feel positive after playing video 

games. 

29

In addition to that, boys are more familiar with video games 

than girls. Boys play more frequently than girls. Boys are more 

likely to own their own games than girls. Boys play longer at each 

sitting than girls, almost double, 84 minutes to 40 minutes. Boys 

like more violence in their video games than girls. Boys play more 

each week than girls, 10 hours versus 3 hours. Boys name more 

violent games as their three favorite games than girls, and boys expose themselves to more video game violence than girls. 

If I am correct, no girl has engaged in any shooting or violent act 

in a school in this country. Am I correct in that? 

Dr. WALSH. Not that I am aware of. I am not aware of any. 

Senator KERRY. Now, is there something particular about the 

interactivity that makes a difference? 

When I grew up, and when we grew up, we obviously saw a lot 

of killing on TV, whether it was Hopalong Cassidy, or Treasure Island, or the Road Runner. I mean, there was violence. The Road 

Runner gets killed. The Road Runner gets back up and he runs 

again, and you have your next incident, and he usually gets run 

over, mashed, killed, or something, but we did not relate to it, obviously, in the same way. 

This interactivity clearly—and I have played some games—not 

some of the violent ones like that, but some of the early ones, and 

it gets you going. It churns you up. You are kind of into it, and 

clearly for a younger mind to have that level of violence engaging 

you, I would assume, as a parent and just as a person, it has an 

impact on you. I mean, I can remember finishing a Pac-Man game 

and sweating, and there is an intensity to it. 

Is it the interactivity that is so different, that really does something to a mind? What is it about that interactivity that then 

might lead somebody to not have a sense of consequences about 

their actions, or that distinguishes between the normal sort of violence you see and this particularized kind of violence? 

Dr. WALSH. I think you bring up a very important point, Senator. 

Psychologically, I am in a completely different role when I am playing an interactive game. When I am watching a movie, and that 

can be engaging as well, as we all know, I am in the role of observer. 

When I am playing one of these games, I am in the role of participant, and so the entire psychological position is different, and so 

it is my actions that are causing the reaction, which makes it much 

more engaging and, as you said, you experience yourself—and I 

think many of us have, it is much more engrossing. 

Getting kids, when they are playing video games, to kind of pay 

attention to something else is very difficult, and recent research we 

did, we asked the kids, is it interfering with your school work, and 

you will see, I do not remember the exact percentages, but a significant percentage said yes. 

We asked kids, have you tried to limit the amount that you play, 

and the kids say yes. Only a fifth of them are successful in limiting 

the amount that they play, and so it is a very, very engaging, and 

depending on the type of the game then, you kind of almost start 

to take on the mind set, because you are playing it from the point 

of view of the perpetrator. 

30

Senator KERRY. Well, I am convinced—I mean, I remember when 

I was a prosecutor in the DA’s office, certain kinds of games were 

not allowed in certain kinds of establishments. These were in adult 

establishments, and they usually had to do with gambling of one 

form or another, but nevertheless there was restricted access with 

respect to certain kinds of games for reasons of public policy, for 

judgments of morality and so forth. 

It seems to me, I mean, I think all of us would be pretty loath 

to have some kind of grandiose Federal reach here, and needless 

to say, there were obvious constitutional questions we are all aware 

of, but I for the life of me do not understand why, given the level 

of violence we are witnessing, given the correlation that so many 

studies now have made, what is it that is happening on our city 

councils, and what is that is happening in the mayors’ offices, and 

what is it that is happening or not happening in chambers of commerce, Lion’s Clubs, Elks, and all of these civic institutions of a 

community that are permitting these kinds of games in a community? They have local ordinance capacity to prevent any of these 

games from appearing in a public place today. 

Dr. WALSH. Senator, one of the barriers we have to overcome 

with adults is ignorance about the games. I am not talking about 

ignorant people. I am talking about ignorance about the games. 

There is a technological barrier. With other forms of media we can 

share the media, so, for example, my kids watch television, I watch 

television. My kids watch films, I watch films. My kids play video 

games. I cannot do it. 

The technology is only 30 years old, and so typically, with exceptions, most people over 30 are not adept at the technology, and so 

they cannot play the games. Therefore, they do not pay as much 

attention, and they are called games, and so most people assume 

from that that they are harmless. 

The knowledge gap that we have to overcome I think is an educational challenge, and I think my experience is, once people start 

to find out what is in these games, then they start to take it more 

seriously. 

Senator KERRY. Well, I think, Mr. Chairman, that we should undertake a major effort to educate. I mean, we should be writing and 

sending to city councils and boards of aldermen and mayors and all 

of the civic institutions of the communities across this country notice of these studies, and of the level of violence that is at large, 

and the testimonies of people like Mrs. Steger and Danielle 

Shimotakahara, and try to have an impact here, because they have 

the ability to make these determinations. 

We do not need some great legislative effort. We need to educate 

people and make them aware. Now, I wonder if we need more studies? Do we have, sort of, the conclusive link that would allow people to be able to make this nexus that is so critical? 

Dr. WALSH. We are really in the early stages of the research, 

Senator. We do need more studies to be able to really identify the 

cause and effect and, of course, the technology is changing so quickly. Games kids are playing today have faint resemblance to games 

they were playing 6 years ago. 

Senator KERRY. I will lay odds that the vast majority of parents 

in this country do not have a clue what virtual killing looks like 

31

or feels like. They do not have a clue how real it is and how subversive it could be to a kid who already does not have good communication with the parent, or who already feels alienated, or who already is growing up with all the problems teenagers have. 

I mean, you look at what these kids were doing out in Columbine, and they may come from a quote, good home, and they 

may have two parents, and they may—but there are plenty of kids 

from good homes and two parents who are not connected to reality 

or to their parents, or to any of the goodness around them, and it 

seems to me it is just common sense. We have got to have a little 

more common sense applied. 

Dr. WALSH. Common sense really does work. We have a community education initiative at the National Institute on Media and the 

Family, and we have a community education program in that we 

have some video clips of video games. Invariably, when we show 

parents those clips, you can hear a pin drop when it is finished. 

Parents are saying, I had no idea. You are absolutely right. 

Senator KERRY. Well, Mr. Chairman, my time is up. I would just 

like to perhaps invite you to work, and maybe we could work on 

some kind of a significant outreach educational effort that is obviously not legislative, but might have far more impact faster if we 

were to engage in that. 

Senator BROWNBACK. I think that is an excellent suggestion, and 

it is one that one of the panelists made. Mrs. Steger is making that 

point, that we need a public relations, we need a public education 

campaign about what these are all about, and what they are doing 

to our children, and that those abilities to deal with this do exist 

at the local level. 

Senator KERRY. Can I make one final comment? 

Senator BROWNBACK. Please. 

Senator KERRY. Danielle made the best point of all, that it is the 

parents who need to be fired. Now, obviously we do not want to fire 

them. We want to get them engaged. 

But the bottom line here is, Danielle, you have got a parent or 

two parents who are deeply involved in your life, and they have 

made a difference, and you are making good judgments. Too many 

of our kids in this country are going home from school to households that have no parent in them until 6, 7 in the evening, and 

even then parents come home and they are not involved, and there 

is no engagement. 

So the great task for America is not just to lament, or to sort of 

focus on the games themselves. It is to focus on the choices that 

we have in our communities and in our families, and we need to 

do a better job with after-school programs, with all of the kinds of 

things that engage kids in something other than 10 hours a week 

of distraction in front of a screen in violent endeavors, and our education system ought to be doing a hell of a lot better job, frankly, 

of making sure those choices are available and people are aware of 

these kinds of things. 

It is a big task, and there is no one solution to it, but I really 

hope we can get serious about it. 

Senator BROWNBACK. I do, too. Thank you very much, Senator 

Kerry. 

32

Dr. Walsh, one final question for you. Who are these games marketed to? Are they marketed to adults, the violent games, or are 

they marketed to the children? 

Dr. WALSH. That is another one of the concerns, and we have 

identified that in the annual video game report cards. For example, 

Senator, there are Duke Nukem action figures that kids can buy 

in toy stores. 

Senator BROWNBACK. At what age? 

Dr. WALSH. At any age, and of course action figures are attractive to younger kids. 

Senator BROWNBACK. It is my contention that the companies are 

actually marketing all of these games to children. It would be

interesting to me to find out from the companies how are they

doing their marketing, and how are they devising their marketing

strategy. 

They will not agree to testify. We know they are using psychological analyses to determine, how do we get these games to move, 

and move off of the shelf, and yet they will not respond. 

Dr. WALSH. We actually have data, documents we have turned 

over to the Federal Trade Commission, which are actual documents 

of advertising agencies for a video game producer, their plan to 

market this game to teenagers, and the game was rated for adults, 

so we actually have some data, and the Federal Trade Commission 

now has it. We have given it to them. 

Senator BROWNBACK. We need to find out a lot more from these 

companies. 

Thank you very much. It has been an excellent panel, and we 

thank you for sharing the difficulty and your heart and your hope. 

The next panel consists of Dr. Craig Anderson from the Department of Psychology at Iowa State University, Dr. Eugene F. 

Provenzo, School of Education, University of Miami, and Dr. 

Jeanne Funk from the Department of Psychology of the University 

of Toledo. 

I might tell the people viewing this, or listening to this testimony, these are all expert witnesses who have studied this issue 

extensively and are here today to offer their expertise and what 

they have learned to date. I would also ask the panelists, if you 

have suggestions or recommendations based upon your studies and 

your findings, please feel free to share those with us as well. 

Dr. Anderson, thank you very much for joining us. The floor is 

yours. 

STATEMENT OF DR. CRAIG A. ANDERSON, PROFESSOR, IOWA 

STATE UNIVERSITY, DEPARTMENT OF PSYCHOLOGY, AMES, 

IOWA 

Dr. ANDERSON. Thank you, Senator. Distinguished Senators, ladies and gentlemen, my name is Craig Anderson. I am a professor 

of psychology and chair of the Department of Psychology at Iowa 

State University. I have studied human behavior now for over 25 

years. Much of that time has been devoted to studying human aggression, what we typically call violence. 

I am very happy to be here to speak with you today about the 

problems of exposing young people to interactive violence. In particular, I would like to talk about violent video games. Though 

33

there are many complexities in this realm of behavioral research, 

there is one clear and simple message that parents, educators, and 

public policymakers such as yourselves need to hear. Playing violent video games can cause increases in aggression and violence. 

A second message to take away from my report is also very important. There are good reasons to expect that the effects of exposure to violent video games will be even greater than the well-documented effects of exposure to violent television and movies. I will 

return to this point a little bit later, but first I want to highlight 

some facts concerning TV and movie violence. 

Fact 1. Exposure to violent TV and movies causes increases in 

aggression and violence. 

Fact 2. These effects are of two kinds, short-term and long-term. 

The short-term effect is that aggression increases immediately 

after viewing a violent TV show or a movie. The long-term effect 

is that repeated exposure to violent TV and movies increases the 

violence proneness of the person watching such shows. 

Fact 3. Both the long-term and the short-term effects occur to 

both boys and girls. 

And Fact 4, the effects of TV and movie violence on aggression 

are bigger than the effects in the medical field and in other fields 

that we typically believe are really huge. For instance, the effects 

of, again, TV and movie violence are bigger than the effect of exposure to lead on IQ scores in children. They are bigger than the effect of calcium intake on bone mass. They are bigger than the effect 

of homework on academic achievement, and they are bigger than 

the effect of exposure to asbestos on cancer. 

Now, you might ask why I consider TV and movie violence research when we are explicitly talking about interactive violence, in 

this case, video games. There are several reasons, and I will just 

hit these real briefly. 

First, the psychological processes underlying TV and movie violence are also at work when people play video games, and the second reason is that the research literature on TV violence effects is 

vast. It is huge. We understand what is going on there, whereas 

the literature on video game violence is relatively small. 

Now, let us consider some facts derived from this relatively small 

research literature that is specifically focused on video games. 

Number 1, the amount of time our children and youth spend playing video games continues to increase annually. No big surprise 

there. 

Number 2, young people who play lots of violent video games behave more violently than those who do not. 

Number 3, playing a violent video game causes an increase in aggressive thinking, 43 percent more aggressive thinking in one recent study. 

And Number 4, playing a violent video game causes an increase 

in retaliatory aggression, 17 percent more aggression in one recent 

study. 

Now, why does exposure to violent media increase aggression 

and violence? We do not have nearly enough time for that particular talk, but basically children who are exposed to a lot of violent media learn a number of lessons that change them into more 

aggressive people. 

34

One way to think about this is to realize that the developing personality is like slowly hardening clay. Various life experiences, including exposure to violent media, are like the hands that shape 

the clay. Changes in shape are relatively easy to make at first, 

when the clay is soft, but later on changes become increasingly difficult as the clay hardens. 

Earlier, I said that there are good reasons to expect that violent 

interactive media will have an even stronger effect on subsequent 

violence and violent TV and movies, and there are at least four different reasons for this. The first one is that identification with the 

aggressor increases imitation of the aggressor, and video games require stronger identification with violent characters than does 

watching violent TV or movies. 

Second, active participation increases learning. The violent video 

game player is a much more active participant than is the violent 

TV show watcher. 

Third, rehearsing an entire behavioral sequence is a more effective teaching tool than rehearsing only a part of it. The video game 

player must choose to aggress and physically enact the aggression 

in some way, whereas the TV viewer does not make any such 

choices or take action, so that the video game player really rehearses the entire behavioral sequence, whereas the TV watcher 

does not. 

And reason 4, repetition increases learning. The addictive nature 

of video games and the frequency with which aggressive choices 

and actions are required in order to win means that their lessons 

will be taught repeatedly, much more frequently than in most violent TV shows or movies. 

I would also like to comment briefly on just several myths concerning media violence. 

Myth 1, violent media have harmful effects only on a very small 

minority of people who use these media. We hear this myth—we 

have heard it for 30 years involving TV violence. We are now starting to hear it from the industry involving video game violence. It 

is simply not true. 

It is true that most people who play violent video games do not 

end up in prison for a violent crime. It is also true most people who 

smoke do not die of lung cancer. That does not mean that the 

smokers have not suffered other ill-effects and, similarly, people 

who play violent video games, even though they may not end up 

in prison, that does not mean they are not affected. 

In fact, large proportions, we do not know exactly how many, are 

affected. They become more aggressive people. That may involve 

slapping their kids or spouses, getting in more arguments, and so 

on. It does not necessarily mean they are actually going to become 

mass murderers. 

A second myth is that violent media allow a person to get rid of 

violent tendencies in a nonharmful way. This is what Dr. Walsh referred to earlier as the catharsis hypothesis. We have known for 

over 30 years that that hypothesis is wrong. More recently, it has 

resurfaced in the media as the venting hypothesis. It is still wrong. 

In fact, the research quite clearly shows playing violent video 

games or observing aggressive actions increases aggression. It does 

not decrease it. 

35

Now, obviously many factors contribute to any particular act of 

violence and, similarly, many factors contribute to the development 

of an aggressive personality. More importantly for this hearing, 

high exposure to media violence is a major contributing cause of 

the high rate of violence in modern U.S. society. Just as important, 

there are effective ways of reducing this particular contributing 

cause. Reducing our children’s exposure to media violence could 

have an important impact. 

I thank you for your interest in this issue, and would release the 

floor to whoever is next. 

[The prepared statement of Dr. Anderson follows:]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF DR. CRAIG A. ANDERSON, IOWA STATE UNIVERSITY, 

DEPARTMENT OF PSYCHOLOGY, AMES, IOWA

Distinguished Senators, ladies, and gentlemen. I am Craig Anderson, Professor of 

Psychology and Chair of the Department of Psychology at Iowa State University. I 

have studied human behavior for over 25 years. My first research publication, in 

1979, concerned one potential contributing factor in the outbreak of riots. My first 

publication on video game violence appeared in 1987. Next month, the American 

Psychological Association will publish a new research article on video games and violence that I wrote with a colleague of mine (Karen Dill). The article will appear 

in the Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, the premier scientific outlet for 

research in social and personality phenomena. I recently wrote the ‘‘Human Aggression and Violence’’ articles for both the Encyclopedia of Psychology and the Encyclopedia of Sociology. 

I am very happy to be here to speak with you today about the problems of exposing people, especially young people, to interactive violence, that is, violent video 

games. Though there are many complexities in this realm of behavioral research, 

there is one clear and simple message that parents, educators, and public policy 

makers such as yourselves need to hear: Playing violent video games can cause increases in aggression and violence. 

A second message to take away from my report is also very important: There are 

good reasons to expect that the effects of exposure to violent video games on subsequent aggressive behavior will be even greater than the well-documented effects of 

exposure to violent television and movies. I’ll return to this point in a moment. 

TV & Movie Violence: Facts & Relevance 

But first, I want to highlight some facts concerning TV and movie violence, many 

of which were reported to a Senate hearing last year by Professor Rowell Huesmann 

of the University of Michigan. 

Fact 1. Exposure to violent TV and movies causes increases in aggression and violence. 

Fact 2. These effects are of two kinds: short term and long term. The short term 

effect is that aggression increases immediately after viewing a violent TV show or 

movie, and lasts for at least 20 minutes. The long term effect is that repeated exposure to violent TV and movies increases the violence-proneness of the person watching such shows. In essence, children who watch a lot of violent shows become more 

violent as adults than they would have become had they not been exposed to so 

much TV and movie violence. 

Fact 3. Both the long term and the short term effects occur to both boys and girls. 

Fact 4. The effects of TV and movie violence on aggression are not small. Indeed, 

the media violence effect on aggression is bigger than the effect of exposure to lead 

on IQ scores in children, the effect of calcium intake on bone mass, the effect of 

homework on academic achievement, or the effect of asbestos exposure on cancer. 

Why consider the TV and movie violence research literature when discussing 

video game violence? There are three main reasons. First, the psychological processes underlying TV and movie violence effects on aggression are also at work when 

people play video games. The similarities between exposure to TV violence and exposure to video game violence are so great that ignoring the TV violence literature 

would be foolish. Second, the research literature on TV violence effects is vast, 

whereas the research literature on video game violence is small. Researchers have 

been investigating TV effects for over 40 years, but video games didn’t even exist 

until the 1970s, and extremely violent video games didn’t emerge until the early 

1990s. Third, because the TV/movie violence research literature is so mature there 

36

has been ample time to answer early criticisms of the research with additional research designed to address the criticisms. Thus, the various shoot-from-the-hip criticisms and myths created by those with a vested interest in creating and selling various kinds of violent entertainment media have been successfully tested and debunked. I’ll describe some of the more popular ones in a few moments. 

Video Game Violence: Scope & Research 

Now, let’s consider facts derived from the relatively small research literature that 

is specifically focused on video games. 

Fact 1. Video games are consuming a larger amount of time every year. Virtually 

all children now play video games. The average 7th grader is playing electronic 

games at least 4 hours per week, and about half of those games are violent. Even 

though the number of hours spent playing video games tends to decline in the high 

school and college years, a significant portion of students are playing quite a few 

video games. In 1998, 3.3% of men entering public universities in the United States 

reported playing video games more than 15 hours per week in their senior year in 

high school. In 1999, that percentage jumped to a full 4%. 

Fact 2. Young people who play lots of violent video games behave more violently 

than those who do not. For example, in the most recent study of this type exposure 

to video game violence during late adolescence accounted for 13–22% of the variance 

in violent behaviors committed by this sample of people. By way of comparison, 

smoking accounts for about 14% of lung cancer variance. 

Fact 3. Experimental studies have shown that playing a violent video game causes 

an increase in aggressive thinking. For example, in one study young college students were randomly assigned the task of playing a violent video game (Marathon 

2) or a nonviolent game (Glider Pro). Later, they were given a list of partially completed words, such as muller. They were asked to fill in the blanks as quickly 

as possible. Some of the partial words could form either an aggressive word (murder) or a nonaggressive word (mutter). Those who had played the violent game generated 43% more aggressive completions than those who had played a nonviolent 

game. 

Fact 4. Experimental studies have shown that playing a violent video game causes 

an increase in retaliatory aggression. For example, in one study participants were 

randomly assigned to play either a violent game (Wolfenstein 3D) or a nonviolent 

game (Myst). Shortly afterwards, they received a series of mild provocations and 

were given an opportunity to retaliate aggressively. Those who had played the violent game retaliated at a 17% higher rate than those who had played the nonviolent 

game. 

Fact 5. Experimental and correlational studies have shown that playing violent 

video games leads to a decrease in prosocial (helping) behaviors. 

Why Media Violence Increases Aggression & Violence 

Why does exposure to violent media increase aggression and violence? There are 

several different ways in which watching or playing violent media can increase aggression and violence. The most powerful and long lasting involves learning processes. From infancy, humans learn how to perceive, interpret, judge, and respond 

to events in the physical and social environment. We learn by observing the world 

around us, and by acting on that world. We learn rules for how the social world 

works. We learn behavioral scripts and use them to interpret events and actions of 

others and to guide our own behavioral responses to those events. These various 

knowledge structures develop over time. They are based on the day-to-day observations of and interactions with other people, real (as in the family) and imagined (as 

in the mass media). Children who are exposed to a lot of violent media learn a number of lessons that change them into more aggressive people. They learn that there 

are lots of bad people out there who will hurt them. They come to expect others to 

be mean and nasty. They learn to interpret negative events that occur to them as 

intentional harm, rather than as an accidental mistake. They learn that the proper 

way to deal with such harm is to retaliate. Perhaps as importantly, they do not 

learn nonviolent solutions to interpersonal conflicts. 

As these knowledge structures develop over time, they become more complex and 

difficult to change. In a sense, the developing personality is like slowly-hardening 

clay. Environmental experiences, including violent media, shape the clay. Changes 

are relatively easy to make at first, when the clay is soft, but later on changes become increasingly difficult. Longitudinal studies suggest that aggression-related 

knowledge structures begin to harden around age 8 or 9, and become more 

perseverant with increasing age. 

The result of repeated exposure to violent scripts, regardless of source, can be 

seen in several different aspects of a person’s personality. There is evidence that 

37

such exposure increases general feelings of hostility, thoughts about aggression and 

retaliation, suspicions about the motives of others, and expectations about how others are likely to deal with a potential conflict situation. Repeated exposure to violent 

media also reduces negative feelings that normally arise when observing someone 

else get hurt. In other words, people become desensitized to violence. Finally, exposure to violent media teaches people that aggressive retaliation is good and proper. 

Violent Video Games vs. TV & Movies 

Earlier, I said that there are good reasons to expect that violent interactive media 

will have an even stronger effect on aggression and violence than traditional forms 

of media violence such as TV and movies. These several reasons all involve differences between TV and video games that influence learning processes. The following four reasons all have considerable research support behind them, but have 

not yet been extensively investigated in the video game domain. 

Reason 1. Identification with the aggressor increases imitation of the aggressor. 

In TV shows and movies there may be several characters with which an observer 

can identify, some of whom may not behave in a violent fashion. In most violent 

video games, the player must identify with one violent character. In ‘‘first person 

shooters,’’ for instance, the player assumes the identity of the hero or heroine, and 

then controls that character’s actions throughout the game. This commonly includes 

selection of weapons and target and use of the weapons to wound, maim, or kill the 

various enemies in the game environment. Common weapons include guns, grenades, chain saws and other cutting tools, cars and tanks, bombs, hands, and 

knives. 

Reason 2. Active participation increases learning. The violent video game player 

is a much more active participant than is the violent TV show watcher. That alone 

may increase the effectiveness of the violent story lines in teaching the underlying 

retaliatory aggression scripts to the game player. Active participation is a more effective teaching tool in part because it requires attention to the material being 

taught. 

Reason 3. Rehearsing an entire behavioral sequence is more effective than rehearsing only a part of it. The aggression script being rehearsed is more complete 

in a video game than in a TV show or movie. For example, the video game player 

must choose to aggress, and in essence rehearses this choice process, whereas the 

TV viewer does not have to make any such choices. Similarly, in video games the 

player must carry out the violent action, unlike the violent TV viewer. Indeed, in 

many video games the player physically enacts the same behaviors in the game that 

would be required to enact it in the real world. Some games involve shooting a realistic electronic gun, for instance. Some virtual reality games involve the participant 

throwing punches, ducking, and so on. As the computer revolution continues, the 

‘‘realism’’ of the video game environment will increase dramatically. 

Reason 4. Repetition increases learning. The addictive nature of video games 

means that their lessons will be taught repeatedly. This is largely a function of the 

reinforcing properties of the games, including the active and changing images, the 

accompanying sounds, and the actual awarding of points or extra lives or special 

effects when a certain level of performance is reached. 

Myths 

I’d also like to comment briefly on a number of myths concerning media violence. 

Many of these myths have been around for years. Some come from well-intentioned 

sources that simply happen to be wrong; others are foisted on our society by those 

who believe that their profits will be harmed if an informed society (especially parents) begins to shun violent TV shows, movies, and video games. 

Myth 1. The TV/movie violence literature is inconclusive. Any scientist in any field 

of science knows that no single study can definitively answer the complex questions 

encompassed by a given phenomenon. Even the best of studies have limitations. It’s 

a ridiculously easy task to nitpick at any individual study, which frequently happens whenever scientific studies seem to contradict a personal belief or might have 

implications about the safety of one’s products. The history of the smoking/lung cancer debate is a wonderful example of where such nitpicking successfully delayed 

widespread dissemination and acceptance of the fact that the product (mainly cigarettes) caused injury and death. The myth that the TV/movie violence literature is 

inconclusive has been similarly perpetuated by self-serving nitpicking. 

Scientific answers to complex questions take years of careful research by numerous scientists interested in the same question. We have to examine the questions 

from multiple perspectives, using multiple methodologies. About 30 years ago, when 

questioned about the propriety of calling Fidel Castro a communist, Richard Cardinal Cushing replied, ‘‘When I see a bird that walks like a duck and swims like 

38

a duck and quacks like a duck, I call that bird a duck.’’ When one looks at the whole 

body research in the TV/movie violence domain, clear answers do emerge. In this 

domain, it is now quite clear that exposure to violent media significantly increases 

aggression and violence in both the immediate situation and over time. The TV/

movie violence research community has correctly identified their duck. 

Myth 2. Violent media have harmful effects only on a very small minority of people who use these media. One version of this myth is commonly generated by parents who allow their children to watch violent movies and play violent games. It 

generally sounds like this, ‘‘My 12 year old son watches violent TV shows, goes to 

violent movies, and plays violent video games, and he’s never killed anyone.’’ Of 

course, most people who consume high levels of violent media, adults or youth, do 

not end up in prison for violent crimes. Most smokers do not die of lung cancer, either. The more relevant question is whether many (or most) people become more 

angry, aggressive, and violent as a result of being exposed to high levels of media 

violence. Are they more likely to slap a child or spouse when provoked? Are they 

more likely to drive aggressively, and display ‘‘road rage?’’ Are they more likely to 

assault co-workers? The answer is a clear yes. 

Myth 3. Violent media, especially violent games, allow a person to get rid of violent tendencies in a nonharmful way. This myth has a long history and has at least 

two labels: the catharsis hypothesis, or venting. The basic idea is that various frustrations and stresses produce an accumulation of violent tendencies or motivations 

somewhere in the body, and that venting these aggressive inclinations either by observing violent media or by aggressive game playing will somehow lead to a healthy 

reduction in these pent-up violent tendencies. This idea is that it is not only incorrect, but in fact the opposite actually happens. We’ve known for over thirty years 

that behaving aggressively or watching someone else behave aggressively in one 

context, including in ‘‘safe’’ games of one kind or another, increases subsequent aggression. It does not decrease it. 

Myth 4. Laboratory studies of aggression do not measure ‘‘real’’ aggression, and 

are therefore irrelevant. This myth persists despite the successes of psychological 

laboratory research in a variety of domains. In the last few years, social psychologists from the University of Southern California and from Iowa State University 

have carefully examined this claim, using very different methodologies, and have 

clearly demonstrated it to be nothing more than a myth. Laboratory studies of aggression accurately and validly measure ‘‘real’’ aggression. 

Myth 5. The magnitude of violent media effects on aggression and violence is trivially small. This myth is related to Myth 2, which claims that only a few people 

are influenced by media violence. In fact, as noted earlier the TV violence effect on 

aggression and violence is larger than many effects that are seen as huge by the 

medical profession and by society at large. Furthermore, preliminary evidence and 

well-developed theory suggests that the violent video game effects may be substantially larger. 

For Good or Ill 

I have focused my remarks on the negative consequences of exposing young people 

to violent video games, and on the reasons why violent video games are likely to 

prove more harmful even than violent TV or movies. Although this may be obvious 

to many, I should also like to note that many of the characteristics that make violent video games such a powerful source of increased aggression and violence in society also can be used to create video games that enhance learning of lessons that 

are quite valuable to society. This includes traditional academic lessons as well as 

less traditional but still valuable social lessons. 

Caveats 

Obviously, many factors contribute to any particular act of violence. There is usually some initial provocation, seen as unjust by one party or the other. This is followed by some sort of retaliatory response, which is in turn interpreted as an unjust 

provocation. This leads to an escalatory cycle that may end in physical harm to one 

or both parties. How people respond to initial provocations depends to a great extent 

on the social situation (most people are less likely to respond aggressively in church 

than they are in a bar), on their current frame of mind (those who have been thinking aggressive thoughts or who are feeling hostile are more likely to respond aggressively), and on the personality of the individual (habitually aggressive people are 

more likely to respond aggressively than habitually peaceful people). Short term exposure to media violence influences a person’s frame of mind, and long term exposure creates people who are somewhat more aggressive habitually, but many factors 

contribute to current frame of mind and to habitual aggressiveness. However, even 

though one cannot reasonably claim that a particular act of violence or that a lifeVerDate Apr 24 2002 09:45 May 02, 2003 Jkt 078656 PO 00000 Frm 00042 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 S:\WPSHR\GPO\DOCS\78656.TXT SCOM1 PsN: CAROLT
39

time of violence was caused exclusively by the perpetrator’s exposure to violent entertainment media, one can reasonably claim that such exposure was a contributing 

causal factor. More importantly for this hearing, my research colleagues are correct 

in claiming that high exposure to media violence is a major contributing cause of 

the high rate of violence in modern U.S. society. Just as important, there are effective ways of reducing this particular contributing cause. Educating parents and society at large about the dangers of exposure to media violence could have an important impact. 

Unknowns 

The research literature on video games is sparse. There are numerous questions 

begging for an answer that is simply not yet available. Just to whet your appetite, 

here are a few questions I believe need to be addressed by new research. 

1. Does explicitly gory violence desensitize video game players more so than less 

gory violence? If so, does this desensitization increase subsequent aggression? Does 

it decrease helping behavior? 

2. What features increase the game player’s identification with an aggressive 

character in video games? 

3. What features, if any, could be added to violent video games to decrease the 

impact on subsequent aggression by the game player? For instance, does the addition of pain responses by the game victims make players less reluctant to reenact 

the aggression in later real-world situations, or do such pain responses in the game 

further desensitize the player to others’ pain? 

4. Can exciting video games be created that teach and reinforce nonviolent solutions to social conflicts? 

Conclusion 

Thank you for your interest in this issue. I’d be happy to address your questions 

at this time.

Senator BROWNBACK. Thank you for your research. You are 

among the first researchers to talk about causal connection and not 

just correlation. I want to explore that with you in some questioning. 

I think we have next on the panel Dr. Eugene Provenzo. Dr. 

Provenzo, thank you very much for being here. 

STATEMENT OF EUGENE F. PROVENZO, JR., PROFESSOR, 

SCHOOL OF EDUCATION, UNIVERSITY OF MIAMI 

Dr. PROVENZO. Thank you for having me. 

Let me say that I am a Professor of Education and my perspective is different than my colleagues here, who are psychologists. I 

am concerned about the stories we tell our children and how they 

are constructed in our society. Much of what I will discuss this 

morning is found in a new book that I am working on entitled, 

‘‘Children in Hyperreality: The Loss of the Real in Contemporary 

Childhood and Adolescence.’’ I am arguing that children and teenagers are spending much of 

their time in simulations rather than in the real or natural world. 

This occurs at many different levels: in the video games that are 

so much a part of the experience of contemporary childhood, in the 

shopping malls and commercial civic spaces where our children 

spend so much of their time, in television programs, advertisements and movies, in theme parks where we vacation, in the online 

chat rooms and discussion programs through which we communicate and exchange information and so on. 

I think that this whole issue needs to be put in the context of 

a larger issue of a loss of the connection to the real world and an 

increasing movement into a world of simulation. Video games are 

a very important part of this. 

40

As suggested above, the hyperrealities that increasingly shape 

and define the experience of childhood and adolescence come in 

many different shapes and forms. Some are clearly more detrimental than others. Since this hearing focuses on the impact of 

interactive violence on children, I am going to concentrate on what 

I consider to be the most disturbing aspect of my research: the increasing romanticization of violence and, more specifically, the 

frightening power and potential of the new video game technologies. 

I would like to argue that films and video games not only teach 

children about violence, but also how to be violent. When violence 

is stylized, romanticized, and choreographed, it can be stunningly 

beautiful and seductive. At the same time, it encourages children 

and adolescents to assume a rhetorical stance that equates violence 

with style and personal empowerment. It does matter that we romanticize and stylize violence in films and video games. It does 

matter that children and adolescents can put themselves into the 

virtual body of a killer in first-person shooter games. 

It matters because a video game or computer game is a teaching 

machine. Here is where my perspective as an education professor, 

as a pedagogist, is important. The psychological studies are extremely useful and valuable. But there is a simple logic here. I am 

an educator, and here is my logic. Highly skilled players learn the 

lesson of a game through practice. As a result, they learn the lesson of the machine and its software, and thus, they achieve a higher score. They are behaviorally reinforced as they play the game, 

and thus, they are being taught. 

Have you ever considered what it is, or are we considering as a 

nation, what it is that they are being taught? In this context, we 

might consider some of the games we have seen displayed here. 

Games such as Quake, Blood, Doom, or the recently released game 

Daikatana. These are games that provide the player with a realview perspective of the game. This is very different from the earlier 

tradition of video games like Street Fighter II or Mortal Kombat, 

in which the user viewed small cartoon figures on the screen and 

then controlled their actions by manipulating them through a game 

controller. 

In contrast, a first-person shooter actually puts you inside the action of the game. The barrels of the weapons, like pistols and shotguns, are placed at the bottom edge of the computer screen. You 

can look right or left, up and down, by manipulating the computer 

mouse or game controller. The effect is literally one of stepping into 

the action of the game as a participant holding the weapon. And 

as David Walsh has so well developed, the fact that we have these 

increasingly powerful technologies are making this more and more 

realistic all of the time. 

People like Lieutenant Colonel David Grossman, a former professor of psychology at West Point, argues that first-person shooter 

video games are ‘‘murder simulators which, over time, teach a person how to look another person in the eye and snuff out their life.’’

Games like Doom are in fact used by the military and police organizations to train people. The Marine Corps, for example, has 

adopted Doom to train soldiers in the Marine Corps. 

41

In a first-person shooter like Quake, there are no boundaries or 

limits. The more extreme you are, the more likely you are to win. 

That is the premise of the game. 

Paul Keegan explains that in John Romero’s recently released 

first-person shooter game, Daikatana: ‘‘Physical reality suggests 

that you are sitting in a chair, operating a mouse and a keyboard. 

But with the computer screen replacing your field of vision, you believe you are actually creeping around a corner, causing your 

breath to shorten. Afraid an enemy is lying in wait, you feel your 

pulse quicken. When the monster jumps out, real adrenaline roars 

through your body. And few things in life are more exhilarating 

than spinning around and blowing the damn things to kingdom 

come, the flying gibs, so lifelike, you can feel the wet blood.’’ Speaking of wet blood, this is my contribution to the advertising 

material out there. [Professor Provenzo holds up a recent advertisement for the video game Blood.] This is for an extremely violent 

game, a first-person shooter, called Blood, in which someone literally is sitting in a bath of blood. And this is being advertised and 

directed, from what I can tell, toward adolescent and child game 

players. 

Now, what is going on here is clearly different than just a game 

of cowboys and Indians. However, the creators of first-person shooter games just do not understand that there is a problem. John 

Carmack, the main creator of Quake, for example, considers the 

game nothing more than playing cowboys and Indians, except with 

visual effects. In a recent interview, Carmack was reminded that 

in the past, kids playing cowboys and Indians were not able to blow 

their brothers’ heads off. His response was to laugh and say: ‘‘But 

maybe you wish you could.’’ Keep in mind this important fact. In first-person shooter games, 

players are not responsible for what they do. There are no consequences. There are no consequences for other children, for families or society. It is not like when you were playing cowboys and 

Indians, and if you hit somebody too hard the person you were 

playing with would protest or be unhappy with you. 

As Mark Slouka explains in reference to the CD–ROM video 

game Night Trap, the game allows its players ‘‘to inflict pain without responsibility, without consequences. The punctured flesh will 

heal at the touch of a button, the screen disappears into cyberspace.’’

Games that employ first-person shooter models represent a significant step beyond the tiny cartoon figures that were included in 

Mortal Kombat in the mid-1990’s. And again, the whole fact that 

this is a changing technology, and a rapidly changing technology, 

is I think something we have to keep an eye on. In fact, there has 

been a continuous evolution of the realism of these games as computing power has increased and become cheaper. 

In many respects, the content of violent video games represents 

a giant social and educational experiment. Will these ultraviolent 

games actually teach children to behave and view the world in 

markedly different ways? To repeat an earlier argument, video 

games and computer games are in fact highly effective teaching 

machines. You learn the rules, play the game, get better at it, accumulate a higher score, and eventually you win. 

42

1 Eugene F. Provenzo, Jr., Video Kids: Making Sense of Nintendo (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1991). 2See: Eugene F. Provenzo, Jr., ‘‘ ‘Brave New Video’: Video Games and the Emergence of Interactive Television for Children,’’ Taboo: The Journal of Culture and Education, Vol. 1, #1, Spring 

1995, pp. 151–162; and Eugene F. Provenzo, Jr., ‘‘Video Games and the Emergence of Interactive Media for Children,’’ in Shirley R. Steinberg and Joe L. Kincheloe Kinderculture: The 

Corporate Construction of Childhood (Denver, Colorado: Westview Press, 1997), pp. 103–113. 

As Mark Slouka argues: ‘‘The implications of new technologies 

like video games are social. The questions they pose are broadly 

ethical, the risk they entail is unprecedented. They are the cultural 

equivalent of genetic engineering, except that in this experiment 

even more than in the other one, we will be the potential new hybrids, the 2-pound mice.’’ It is very possible that the people killed in the last few years as 

a result of school shootings may in fact be the first victims or results of this experiment. If this is indeed the case, it is an experiment we need to stop at once. Some things are simply just too dangerous to experiment with. 

Thank you very much. 

[The prepared statement of Dr. Provenzo follows:]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF EUGENE F. PROVENZO, JR., PROFESSOR, SCHOOL OF EDUCATION, UNIVERSITY OF MIAMI

My comments this morning must be brief. Much of what I will discuss is found 

in a new book I am working on entitled Children and Hyperreality: The Loss of the 

Real in Contemporary Childhood and Adolescence. It continues a line of inquiry I 

began in 1991 with Video Kids: Making Sense of Nintendo,1 as well as in a number 

of articles and book chapters.2 In this work, I am arguing that children and teenagers are spending much of their time in simulations, rather than in the natural 

or ‘‘real’’ world. It is an argument, which if true, has serious implications for not 

only our children, but also for the future of our society. 

Essentially, I believe that the unreal, the simulation, the simulacra has been substituted for the real in the lives of our children. This occurs at many different levels: 

in the video games that are so much a part of the experience of contemporary childhood; in the shopping malls and ‘‘commercial civic spaces’’ where our children spend 

so much of their time; in television programs, advertisements and movies; in the 

theme parks where we vacation; in the online chat rooms and discussion programs 

through which we communicate and exchange information; and finally, in the images of beauty and sexuality that run as a powerful undercurrent through much of 

our culture and the lives of our children. 

As suggested above, the hyperrealities that increasingly shape and define the experience of childhood and adolescence come in many different shapes and forms. 

Some are clearly more detrimental than others. 

Since this hearing focuses on ‘‘The Impact of Interactive Violence on Children,’’ I will concentrate on what I consider to be the most disturbing aspect of my research—the increasing ‘‘romanticization’’ of violence—and more specifically, the 

frightening power and potential of the new video game technologies. 

Let me begin by reflecting a bit on the information included on the recently released videotapes made by Eric Harris and Dylan Klebold shortly before the Columbine High School shootings last year. 

It is very clear that Harris and Klebold wanted to tell the world a story whose 

script they seem to have learned through the entertainment media—particularly 

from ultra-violent films and video games. Harris tells his story in front of a video 

camera with a bottle of Jack Daniels and a sawed-off shotgun cradled in his lap. 

He calls the gun Arlene, after a favorite character in the Doom video game. 

Harris and Klebold saw themselves as important media figures, whose story 

would be worthy of a filmmaker like Steven Spielberg or Quentin Tarintino. The 

fact that Harris and Klebold created these videotapes reminds me of the Mickey and 

Mallory characters in Oliver Stone’s film Natural Born Killers who became media 

stars as a result of a murderous rampage across the country. It is no accident that 

the film was a favorite of Harris and Klebold. 

I would like to argue that films and video games not only teach children about 

violence, but also how to be violent. When violence is stylized, romanticized and 

43

3 Claymon, Deborah, ‘‘Video-game industry seeks to deflect blame for violence,’’ Miami Herald, 

July 2, 1999, 3E. 4Paul Keegan, ‘‘A Game Boy In the Cross Hairs,’’ The New York Times Magazine, May 23, 

1999, p. 38. 5 Ibid, p. 39. 

6 Ibid. 

choreographed, it can be stunningly beautiful and seductive. At the same time, it 

encourages children and adolescents to assume a rhetorical stance that equates violence with style and personal empowerment. 

It does matter that we romanticize and stylize violence in films and video games. 

It does matter that children and adolescents can put themselves into the virtual 

body of a killer in first-person shooter games. 

It matters because a computer or video game is a teaching machine. Here is the 

logic: highly skilled players learn the lesson of game through practice. As a result, 

they learn the lesson of the machine and its software—and thus achieve a higher 

score. They are behaviorally reinforced as they play the game and thus they are 

being taught. Have you ever considered what it is they are being taught? 

Consider first-person shooter games such as Quake, Blood, Doom or the recently 

released Daikatana. These are games that provide the player with a real view perspective of the game. This is very different from the earlier tradition of video games 

like Street Fighter II or Mortal Kombat, in which the user viewed small, cartoon 

figures on the screen and then controlled their actions by manipulating them 

through a game controller. In contrast, a first-person shooter actually puts you inside the action of the game. The barrels of weapons like pistols and shotguns are 

placed at the bottom center edge of the computer screen. You can look right or left, 

up or down, by manipulating the computer mouse or game controller. The effect is 

one of literally stepping into the action of the game as a participant holding the 

weapon. 

Lieutentant Colonel David Grossman, a former Professor of Psychology at West 

Point, argues that first person shooter video games ‘‘are murder simulators which 

over time, teach a person how to look another person in the eye and snuff their life 

out.’’ 3

Games like Doom are, in fact, used by military and police organizations to train 

people. The Marine Corps, for example, has adapted Doom to train soldiers in the 

Corps. 

Some critics claim that there is little difference between what goes on in a firstperson shooter and playing a game of Paintball, where players divide up on teams 

and hunt each other in a wood or elaborately constructed game room. To begin with, 

Paintball is acting that takes place in the real world. You run around a little, get 

tired and winded, bumped and scrapped. There are serious consequences for getting 

out of control as you play—in other words—the fact that the game is physical and 

tangible means that it has limits. These limits not only include your own endurance, 

but the rules and procedures followed by your fellow players. 

In a first-person shooter like Quake there are no boundaries or limits. The more 

‘‘extreme’’ you are (a terminology often used in describing the action of the games), 

the more likely you are to win. Paul Keegan explains that in John Romero’s recently 

released first-person shooter game Daikatana:

Physical reality suggests that you are sitting in a chair operating a mouse and 

a keyboard. But with the computer screen replacing your field of vision, you believe you’re actually creeping around a corner, causing your breath to shorten. 

Afraid an enemy is lying in wait, you feel your pulse quicken. When the monster jumps out, real adrenaline roars through your body. And few things in life 

are more exhilarating than spinning around and blowing the damn things to 

kingdom come, the flying gibs so lifelike you can almost feel wet blood.4

What is going on here is clearly different than just a game of Paintball or ‘‘Cowboys and Indians.’’ However, the creators of first-person shooters just don’t understand that there is a problem. John Carmack, the main creator of Quake, for example, considers the game nothing more than ‘‘playing Cowboys and Indians, except 

with visual effects.’’ 5 In a recent interview, Carmack was reminded that in the past 

kids playing Cowboys and Indians weren’t able to blow their brothers’ heads off. His 

response was to laugh and say: ‘‘But you wished you could.’’ 6

Keep in mind this important fact: in first-person shooter games, players are not 

responsible for what they do. There are no consequences for other children, for families, or for society. As Mark Slouka explains in reference to the CD–ROM video 

game Night Trap, the game allows its players: ‘‘To inflict pain. Without responsiVerDate Apr 24 2002 09:45 May 02, 2003 Jkt 078656 PO 00000 Frm 00047 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 S:\WPSHR\GPO\DOCS\78656.TXT SCOM1 PsN: CAROLT
44

7Mark Slouka, The War of the Worlds: Cyberspace and the High-Tech Assault on Reality 

(New York: Basic Books, 1995), p. 13. 8David E. Sanger, ‘‘High-Tech Exports Hit Antiquated Speed Bumps, The New York Times, 

June 13, 1999, WK 5. 9 John Markoff, ‘‘Silicon Valley’s Awesome Look at New Sony Toy,’’ The New York Times, 

March 19, 1999, p. C1. 10 Ibid. 

bility. Without consequences. The punctured flesh will heal at the touch of a button, 

the scream disappear into cyberspace.’’ 7

Games that employ a first-person shooter model represent a significant step beyond the tiny cartoon figures that were included in Mortal Kombat in the mid1990s. In fact, there has been a continuous evolution of the realism of these games 

as computing power has increased and become cheaper. 

Much of this has to do with the enormous increase in computing power. A moderately fast desktop computer with a Pentium II chip that could be purchased for 

under $1,000 today has the speed of a $20 million Cray supercomputer from the 

mid-1980s.8

Even more interesting is the availability of inexpensive game consoles. Sony’s dominance of this market has recently been challenged by Sega’s amazing 200 Mhz 

Dreamcast game machine—available for nearly a year now in North America. It will 

soon be superseded by Microsoft’s X-Box, which is designed specifically for interactive gaming, and which is set for release in the fall of 2001. The X-Box will be 

driven by a 600 Mhz Intel Pentium III chip. It will cost less than $500 and will 

allow players to go online to play games. The machine and the programs that will 

drive it represent what is potentially an extraordinary virtual reality simulator. 

Larry Smarr, director of the National Center for Supercomputer Applications in 

Champaign-Urbana, Illinois, believes that systems like these represent ‘‘the transition from people playing video games to a world where we will create our own fantasies in cyberspace.’’ 9

In many respects, the content of violent video games represents a giant social and 

educational experiment. Will these ultra violent games actually teach children to behave and view the world in markedly different ways? To repeat an earlier argument, video and computer games are, in fact, highly effective teaching machines. 

You learn the rules, play the game, get better at it, accumulate a higher score, and 

eventually win. As Mark Slouka argues, the implications of new technologies like 

video games ‘‘are social: the questions they pose, broadly ethical; the risks they entail, unprecedented. They are the cultural equivalent of genetic engineering, except 

that in this experiment, even more than the other one, we will be the potential new 

hybrids, the two-pound mice.’’ 10

It is very possible, that the people killed in the last few years as the result of ‘‘school shootings’’ may in fact be the first victims/results of this experiment. If this 

is indeed the case, it is an experiment we need to stop at once. Some things are 

too dangerous to experiment with.

Senator BROWNBACK. Thank you. That was powerful testimony. 

I look forward to exploring some more of it with some questions. 

Dr. Jeanne Funk of the University of Toledo, Department of Psychology, thank you very much for joining us today. 

STATEMENT OF DR. JEANNE B. FUNK, PH.D.,

DEPARTMENT OF PSYCHOLOGY, UNIVERSITY OF TOLEDO 

Dr. FUNK. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

I will address three issues: the general status of research; my 

own work on violent electronic games; and my views about our 

most pressing research needs. The obvious question before us is 

whether exposure to interactive violence causes violent behavior in 

particular individuals. I would like to be able to answer that question for you, but the reality is there is not yet a sufficient body of 

scientific research to make a prediction about any individuals. 

Having said that, I must also acknowledge that there is an 

emerging body of research displayed by my colleagues which does 

identify primarily negative relationships and effects. I am a clinical 

child psychologist. And as such, my interest is in what may cause 

45

individual, behavioral, and emotional problems. Not every child 

who comes into contact with interactive violence ends up behaving 

in an obviously violent manner. In fact, most do not. My research 

goal is to identify which, if any, children are at risk specifically for 

negative impact. 

I began my research several years ago. In 1990, Nintendo’s success brought video games to national attention. And shortly thereafter, I noticed a striking resemblance between the video displays 

used in aircraft during the Persian Gulf War and some popular 

video games. This recognition collided with my 4-year-old son’s demand for a Nintendo system. 

As a scientist, I reviewed the existing research before providing 

this technology to my child. I found that the few studies which had 

been done focused on the relatively benign games of the seventies 

and eighties, and defined violence from the adult experimenter’s 

perspective. So I began my research by developing a category system based on children’s perceptions. 

With my colleague, Dr. Deborah Buchman, and my research 

team, I have surveyed over 1,000 children to identify possible risk 

features. We found associations between a preference for violent 

games and lower self-evaluations of academics, social acceptance, 

and behavior in fourth through eighth graders. I would like to emphasize that this particular approach cannot determine causal relationships. But these findings do suggest that a strong preference 

for violent games may at least be an indicator of adjustment issues. 

Further, it seems unlikely that playing violent electronic games 

will improve children’s negative self-evaluations. I am concerned 

that parents lack information about their children’s exposure to 

interactive violence. In a comparison study, parents reported significantly higher estimates of supervision than their children. And 

this is similar to what Danielle reported from the other direction. 

Most of the parents either named an incorrect game or were not 

able to even guess their child’s favorite game. And in 70 percent 

of these incorrect matches, the child’s favorite game was violent. 

We do have commercial ratings developed to help parents. I compared the commercial ratings with consumer perceptions of game 

content. For games with cartoon-type violence, consumers did not 

agree with the rating system. In most cases, the commercial ratings did not recommend restricting access for younger consumers. 

I will close with some specific recommendations. First, it is essential that we increase the scientific knowledge base. Public policy 

must be informed by data, not by our emotional reactions to even 

horribly tragic events. Dramatic advances in the realism of interactive violence intensify the need for major research initiatives. As 

Dr. Walsh noted, the technology now exists to personalize the visual image of game characters. 

This is a complex topic, and we must amass enough information 

to identify a convergence of findings. We need programmatic research which examines both the immediate and long-term effects 

of interactive violence. There are research techniques which can determine causal relationships, but such research requires a major 

funding commitment. Hopefully there will soon be an opportunity 

for Congress to make such a commitment. I am referring to the 

Multi-Agency Information Technology Research Initiative. Funds 

46

would go to the National Science Foundation, the Initiative’s lead 

agency. 

I would like to recommend that research on technology’s impact 

on children, both the positive and the negative, be a major focus, 

and that the issue of interactive violence be given special attention. 

Finally, I would like to emphasize that there is an urgent need to 

answer the following questions: 

How does interactive violence affect a child’s behavioral, social, 

emotional, and cognitive development? Are interactive media more 

potent than other media in teaching aggressive behavior? And does 

interactive violence influence perceptions of reality or promote detachment from reality? 

If we do not address these issues, violence may become an even 

more serious social problem. I thank you for the opportunity to 

bring these issues to your attention. 

[The prepared statement of Dr. Funk follows:]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF DR. JEANNE B. FUNK, PH.D.,

DEPARTMENT OF PSYCHOLOGY, UNIVERSITY OF TOLEDO

Thank you, Mr. Chairman and members of the Committee, for the opportunity to 

speak with you about research on children and interactive violence. I would like to 

address three issues: the general status of research, my own work on violent video 

and computer games, and finally my views about our most pressing research needs. 

I would like to acknowledge that my research has been informed by the work of 

many other investigators, although I will not specifically address each relevant 

study. 

The obvious question before us is whether exposure to interactive violence causes 

violent behavior. I would like to be able to answer that question for you, but the 

reality is that there is not yet a sufficient body of scientific research to make a definitive statement. Having said that, I must also note that there is an emerging 

body of research which does identify primarily negative relationships and effects. 

Early studies suggested that playing violent video games increases aggressive behavior in younger children, while the results of studies with older children have 

been equivocal. Dr. Craig Anderson’s recent studies provide evidence that

interactive violence affects the cognitions and behavior of young adults, and I am 

currently examining this question with adolescents. However, much more work is 

needed. 

I am a clinical child psychologist. As such, my interest is in what may cause behavioral and emotional problems for individuals. Not every child who comes into 

contact with interactive violence ends up behaving in an obviously violent manner. 

In fact, most do not. My research goal is to identify which, if any, children are at 

risk for negative impact as a result of playing violent video and computer games. 

My research program began several years ago. In 1990, Nintendo’s success 

brought video games to national attention. Shortly thereafter, I noticed a striking 

resemblance between the video displays used in aircraft during the Persian Gulf 

War and some popular video games. This recognition collided with my four year old 

son’s demand for a Nintendo system. 

As a scientist, I reviewed the existing research before providing this technology 

to my four year old. I found that the few studies which had been done focused on 

the relatively benign games of the 70s and 80s, defining violent games from the 

adult experimenter’s perspective (Funk, 1992). Therefore, I began my program of research by developing a category system based on children’s perceptions (Funk, 

1993). 

Development of Categories to Examine Game Preference 

To develop the category system I first asked 357 seventh and eighth graders to 

list up to three favorite video or computer games. The 211 games listed by the initial study group were reviewed, and five general categories based on children’s perceptions of the primary action and main goal were defined by me and a college student assistant with the help of 12 children outside the primary study group. Each 

favorite game was then categorized, again with the help of the 12 outside children. 

Next, the category definitions and the list of ‘‘favorite’’ games with associated categories were given to a group of 38 raters from the original study group who identiVerDate Apr 24 2002 09:45 May 02, 2003 Jkt 078656 PO 00000 Frm 00050 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 S:\WPSHR\GPO\DOCS\78656.TXT SCOM1 PsN: CAROLT
47

fied themselves as regular game players. These students were asked to indicate 

whether they agreed or disagreed with the category assigned to each familiar game. 

The mean rate of agreement with the category assignment was 94% (Funk, 1993). 

Subsequently, the system was revised to separate violent and nonviolent sports 

(Funk & Buchman, 1995), and now consists of the following categories:

Revised Electronic Game Categories with Descriptions 

Category Description 

General 

Entertainment 

The main action is a story or game with no fighting or destruction. 

Educational The main action involves learning new information or figuring out new 

ways to use information. 

Fantasy Violence The main action is a story where a cartoon character must fight or destroy things and avoid being killed or destroyed while trying to reach 

a goal, rescue someone, or escape from something. 

Human Violence The main action is a story where a human character must fight or destroy things and avoid being killed or destroyed while trying to reach 

a goal, rescue someone, or escape from something. 

Nonviolent Sports The main action is sports without fighting or destruction. 

Sports Violence The main action is sports with fighting or destruction. 

Surveying Time Spent and Game Preference 

The electronic game-playing habits of approximately 1000 fourth through eighth 

graders have been surveyed using the categories and definitions described above 

(Buchman & Funk, 1996). On average, boys spend more hours each week playing 

electronic games than girls across all grade levels. Average playing time generally 

decreases for both boys and girls as grade level increases.

Average Hours Reported Playing Electronic Games in a Typical Week by Gender,

Location and Grade 

Fourth Fifth Sixth Seventh Eighth 

Girls 

Home 4.50 3.14 2.60 1.92 2.07

Arcade 1.18 .82 .58 .33 .45

Total 5.67 3.96 3.18 2.25 2.52

Boys 

Home 7.14 6.12 5.40 4.87 3.89

Arcade 2.30 2.10 1.49 1.41 1.12

Total 9.44 8.23 6.89 6.15 4.97 

Regarding favorite games, we found that children of all ages prefer games with 

violent content. Girls tend to prefer fantasy or cartoon-style violence, while boys prefer more realistic or human violence.

Percentage of Favorite Games in Each Category by Gender and Grade 

Fourth Fifth Sixth Seventh Eighth 

Girl

n=289

Boy

n=241

Girl

n=197

Boy

n=187

Girl

n=157

Boy

n=169

Girl

n=126

Boy

n=177

Girl

n=166

Boy

n=183

General 

Entertainment 14.0 6.3 16.8 5.9 16.0 8.9 33.3 7.3 28.9 14.2

Educational 17.6 2.9 24.4 4.3 8.3 3.6 1.6 0.0 5.4 .5

Fantasy Violence 32.7 27.5 30.5 26.2 44.6 24.9 43.7 24.9 44.6 19.1

Human Violence 11.5 25.0 10.2 26.2 16.0 26.0 7.1 29.4 7.2 20.8

Nonviolent Sports 9.3 17.9 12.7 19.8 10.5 20.1 4.3 a 38.4 13.9 45.4

Sports Violence 14.7 20.4 5.6 17.6 5.7 16.6

Note. n refers to number of games listed. aWhen seventh and eighth graders were surveyed, there was only one Sports category. 

48

The Importance of Violent Content 

Several researchers have recently noted the importance of specifically examining 

behavioral and emotional characteristics associated with playing violent electronic 

games (Calvert, 1999; Dill & Dill, 1998; Funk, 1993). Such play could be linked to 

negative behaviors and emotions via various social-cognitive mechanisms: In violent 

electronic games ‘‘justified’’ aggression is demonstrated, practiced, and reinforced 

(Funk & Buchman, 1996). Violence is presented as entertainment with no truly negative consequences. Players are rewarded for choosing the pre-programmed violent 

actions, with little attention given to any other conflict resolution alternatives. 

From one theoretical perspective, playing violent electronic games could develop 

and prime aggressive thought networks (Anderson & Dill, in press; Berkowitz, 

1993). Under certain environmental conditions, aggressive behaviors would be more 

likely to be chosen subsequent to desensitization and disinhibition. In addition, the 

repetitive nature of playing violent electronic games may contribute to the development of aggressive behavioral scripts (Guerra, Huesmann, & Hanish, 1995; 

Huesmann, 1988). Once a script has been established through observational learning and enactment, retention of the script will be strengthened through fantasy rehearsal (Guerra, Huesmann, & Hanish, 1995). Anderson (1997) notes that repetition 

is a key to change in the long term structure of thought and affect. In addition to 

providing the opportunity for the development and rehearsal of aggressive responses, exposure to interactive violence would also seem likely to decrease the relative valence of prosocial behaviors. 

Playing Violent Electronic Games and Self-Concept 

To identify those children who may be negatively impacted by interactive violence, 

I began to examine possible ‘‘high risk’’ game-playing habits. With my colleague, Dr. 

Debra Buchman, and my research team, I have surveyed over 1,000 children. 

Because it reflects core attitudes and coping abilities, self-concept was chosen as 

a target variable to examine relationships between electronic games and adjustment. Susan Harter’s multidimensional, developmentally-based measure was used 

to examine links among self-concept, time commitment, and a preference for violent 

electronic games (Funk & Buchman, 1996). Using Harter’s framework, game-playing 

could theoretically have positive or negative relationships with aspects of self-concept. If game-playing supports self-esteem and does not impede the development of 

other key abilities, a positive relationship would be found. However, if game-playing 

contributes to lower competence in key areas, the relationship may be negative. Alternately, significant correlations may simply reflect a common etiology such as preexisting adjustment status. 

In a group of 357 seventh and eighth graders (183 girls), a small but significant 

negative association was identified for girls between time spent playing video or 

computer games and perceptions of academic competence, behavioral conduct, social 

acceptance, athletic competence, and self-esteem. The one exception to the pattern 

of negative relationships occurred on the scale with the lowest reliability (Job Competence), and was thought to be related to the suitability of the questions for seventh and eighth graders. No significant associations were found for seventh and 

eighth grade boys (Funk & Buchman, 1996). 

In a group of 179 sixth graders (98 girls), for boys, a stronger preference for violent games was associated with lower perceived self-competence in academic competence, social acceptance, and behavior. No significant associations were identified 

for sixth grade girls. 

In a group of 364 fourth and fifth graders (203 girls), a stronger preference for 

violent games was associated with lower self-perceptions of behavioral conduct for 

both boys and girls (Funk, Buchman, & Germann, 1999). 

I would like to emphasize that this research approach cannot determine causal 

relationships. However, finding only negative associations suggests that a strong 

preference for violent games may at least be an indicator of adjustment issues for 

some children. Further, it seems unlikely that playing violent electronic games will 

improve negative self-perceptions in key developmental areas. 

Parent and Child Perceptions of Children’s Game-Playing 

I have been concerned that parents lack information about their children’s exposure to interactive violence. I examined this question by comparing children’s and 

parents’ perceptions of the child’s playing time, parental supervision, and the child’s 

favorite electronic games. In paired comparisons, parents reported significantly 

higher estimates of supervision time than their third through fifth grade children 

(total n = 70; 35 children). Most parents either named an incorrect game or were 

not able to even guess their child’s favorite game. In 70% of these incorrect matches, 

children described their favorite game as being violent. This suggests that parents 

49

may underestimate their child’s exposure to violence in electronic games (Funk, 

Hagan, & Schimming, 1999). 

Electronic Game Ratings and Consumer Perceptions 

In the early 1990s, public concern about violence in electronic games led to the 

creation of ratings systems. A comparison of commercial ratings for popular electronic games with consumer perceptions of game content was performed with the 

help of 201 fourth graders, 145 college students, and 37 parents. For games with 

obviously non-violent or very violent content, there was agreement between consumers and the commercial system. However, there was considerable disagreement 

about notable violent content in games with cartoon-type violence. Despite the high 

level of agreement among consumers regarding the presence of fantasy violent content, in most cases the commercial ratings were unlikely to recommend restricting 

access for younger consumers (Funk, Flores, Buchman, & Germann, 1999). 

Preference for Violent Electronic Games and Psychopathology 

It has been asserted that exposure to media violence is associated with an increase in aggressive behavior. This association is being examined in a small group 

(N = 32) of adolescents, including 12 from a school for children with behavioral problems. The hypothesis being examined is that a preference for violent games will be 

associated with more behavioral problems, particularly externalizing problems such 

as aggressive behavior. 

Desensitization, Empathy, and Attitudes Towards Violence 

Desensitization has been proposed as a primary mechanism by which exposure to 

media violence may influence behavior. However, this conceptualization has not yet 

been empirically examined. To begin to understand desensitization as a result of exposure to electronic game violence, a study was designed to examine associations 

among preference for violent electronic games, empathy, and attitudes towards violence. A background questionnaire requesting information about game-playing habits, Bryant’s Index of Empathy for Children (Bryant, 1982) and the Attitudes Towards Violence Scale (Funk, Elliott, et al., 1999) were administered to 52 sixth graders. Evaluation of these data is ongoing. 

Another ongoing study is examining differences in empathic and aggressive responses as these are related to playing a violent or nonviolent electronic game. Following play, children are asked to describe the likely sequence of events in response 

to descriptions of common situations children may encounter. Pictures are provided 

to help the children better understand the vignette. Half of the vignettes were structured so that an empathic response was one reasonable response. In the other half, 

an aggressive response was one possible outcome. Children’s responses are coded by 

independent raters. This work is ongoing with elementary school age children and 

kindergarteners. 

Recommendations 

I will close with some specific recommendations. First, it is essential that we increase the scientific knowledge base. Public policy must be informed by data, not 

by our emotional reactions to even horribly tragic events. Dramatic advances in the 

realism of interactive violence intensify the need for major research initiatives. For 

example, technology now exists to personalize the visual image of game characters. 

But gaming is not the only way in which children are exposed to interactive violence. Opportunities abound in chat rooms, in MUDs, and on the Web. We have little scientific basis to even guess what the impact of these experiences may be. 

Research on the impact of interactive violence on children must be integrated into 

a developmental research framework. Researchers with relevant interests and expertise are spread across many different disciplines (e.g., education, communication, 

psychology, sociology). Moreover, proprietary and market-driven research, used for 

the purpose of designing interactive media products for children, is not integrated 

into an overall understanding of how children use or are influenced by interactive 

media. To adequately examine the impact of interactive violence on children we 

must develop a multidisciplinary research infrastructure. This will allow us to investigate the broad issues and to understand the tremendous potential of interactive 

media as well as the dangers. 

The impact of interactive violence is a complex topic, and we must amass enough 

information to identify a convergence of findings. We need programmatic research 

which examines both the immediate and long term effects of interactive violence. 

There are research techniques which can determine causal relationships, but these 

studies require large groups of children and long-term followup. Such research requires a major funding commitment. 

50

Hopefully there will soon be an opportunity for Congress to make a specific funding commitment. I am referring to the multi-agency Information Technology Research Initiative. Funds would go to the National Science Foundation, which is the 

Initiative’s lead agency. I would like to recommend that research on technology’s impact on children, both the positive and the negative influence, be a major focus of 

this Initiative, and that the issue of interactive violence be given special attention. 

Finally, I would like to emphasize that there is an urgent need to answer the following questions:

• How does interactive violence affect a child’s behavioral, social-emotional, and 

cognitive development? 

• Are interactive media more potent than other media in teaching aggressive 

behavior? 

• Does interactive violence influence information processing and perceptions of 

reality? 

• Does interactive violence promote detachment from reality? • In what ways can parents counter the influence of interactive violence?

If we do not address these issues, violence may become an even more serious social problem. I thank you for the opportunity to bring these issues to your attention. 

Mr. Chairman, I would be pleased to respond to questions. 

References 

Anderson, C. A. (1997). Effects of violent movies and trait hostility on hostile feelings and aggressive thoughts. Aggressive Behavior, 23, 161–178. 

Anderson, C. A., & Dill, K. E. (in press). Video games and aggressive thoughts, 

feelings, and behavior in the laboratory and in life. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology.

Berkowitz, L. (1993). Aggression: Its causes, consequences, and control. Philadelphia: Temple University Press. 

Bryant, B. K. (1982). An index of empathy for children and adolescents. Child Development, 53, 413–425. 

Buchman, D., & Funk, J. B. (1996). Video and computer games in the ’90s: Children report time commitment and game preference. Children Today, 31, 12–15. 

Calvert, S. L. (1999). Children’s journeys through the information age. Boston: 

McGraw-Hill. 

Dill, K. E., & Dill, J. C. (1998). Video game violence: A review of the empirical 

literature. Aggression and Violent Behavior, 3, 407–428. 

Funk, J. B. (1992). Video games: Benign or malignant? Journal of Developmental 

and Behavioral Pediatrics, 13, 53–54. 

Funk, J. B. (1993). Reevaluating the impact of video games. Clinical Pediatrics, 

32, 86–90. 

Funk, J. B. & Buchman, D. D. (1995). Video game controversies. Pediatric Annals, 

24, 91–94. 

Funk, J. B., & Buchman, D. (1996). Playing violent video and computer games 

and adolescent self-perception. Journal of Communication, 46, 19–32. 

Funk, J. B., Buchman, D. D., & Germann, J. (in press). Preference for violent electronic games, self-concept, and gender differences in young children. American Journal of Orthopsychiatry.

Funk, J. B., Elliott, R., Urman, M., Flores, G., Mock, R., (1999). The Attitudes Towards Violence Scale: A measure for adolescents. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 

14, 1123–1136. 

Funk, J. B., Flores, G., Buchman, D. D., & Germann, J. (1999). Rating electronic 

games: Violence is in the eye of the beholder. Youth and Society, 30, 283–312. 

Funk, J.B., Germann, J., & Buchman, D. (1997). Children and electronic games 

in the United States. Trends in Communication, 2, 111–126. 

Funk, J. B., Hagan, J., & Schimming, J. (1999). Children and electronic games: 

A comparison of parent and child perceptions of children’s habits and preferences 

in a United States sample. Psychological Reports, 85, 883–888. 

Guerra, N. G., Huesmann, L. R., & Hanish, L. (1995). The role of normative beliefs in children’s social behavior. In N. Eisenberg (Ed.) Review of personality and 

social psychology: Vol. 15. Social development. (pp. 140–158). Thousand Oaks, CA: 

Sage. 

Huesmann, L. R. (1988). An information-processing model for the development of 

aggression. Aggressive Behavior, 14, 13–24.

Senator BROWNBACK. Thank you for the testimony and for your 

thoughts. I do not know many parents that go to quite the extreme 

that you did. I wished more did. 

51

I want to explore some of this with you, particularly. Dr. Anderson, you speak of a direct causal link and even state that this is 

a closer causation than even smoking and lung cancer in its impact. I want to explore that with you. 

Is this based on your review of the research? Is it on your research that you are tying in that causal link? 

Dr. ANDERSON. The causal link, specifically focusing on violent 

video games, comes from fairly recent research, much of which currently is unpublished. Some of it will be published next month. 

Some of it I have not gotten written up yet. I am a new chair of 

the Department of Psychology, and so I go to a lot of meetings and 

write a lot of memos. But I have been working on that research. 

So, in fact, the causal statements that I am making are, to a great 

extent, based on research that is so new that the other panel members have not seen it or have just seen very brief summaries of it. 

But it is also based on a review of the few other studies, the few 

other experiments that have been done over the last 15 or 20 years. 

The vast majority of those studies—there are a number of them 

done with kids—school age, elementary, junior high, and high 

school kids—and the majority of those studies do find that kids 

who have been randomly assigned to play a violent video game 

later behaved more aggressively than kids who have been randomly assigned to play a nonviolent game. 

Now, it is true that not all the studies find exactly the same 

thing. And that is true if you look at the thousands of studies done 

on television violence. It is also true in any large area of research 

in any science, including medical research. So what you really have 

to do in order to come to a firm conclusion is look at the whole body 

of research. 

If I remember my history right, Richard Cardinal Cushing once 

said, when asked why he was calling Fidel Castro a communist: 

When I see a bird that looks like a duck and walks like a duck and 

quacks like a duck, I call that bird a duck. The point being you 

take several different perspectives on the same issue, if you start 

to get the same answer, even though each particular piece of evidence by itself is not totally conclusive, eventually the overall picture does become conclusive. 

Senator BROWNBACK. Dr. Funk, I want to get you into this question as well, because you say we need to look at this longer. But 

you suggest that the desire to play violent video games is actually 

an indicator to watch for in our children as leading toward something else that is of a negative nature and behavior. So you do not 

necessarily dispute Dr. Anderson, you are saying it also takes you 

down a wrong path. But you would view it as something to watch 

for in children, to show a correlation by other negative behavior. 

Is that correct, from what your perspective is? 

Dr. FUNK. Well, I think that is correct, based on some of the 

studies that I have done. And I certainly do not disagree with Dr. 

Anderson, that there is a body of research coming together that 

suggests there is a negative causal effect. I feel that we are not 

there yet and that we need to carefully gather more evidence before 

I would be comfortable saying, yes, for certain individuals, there is 

a causal effect. 

52

Senator BROWNBACK. But you have no problem saying there is a 

correlation? 

Dr. FUNK. Oh, absolutely, there is definitely a correlation. But it 

may be that troubled children are drawn to violent video games 

rather than the violent video games causing the children to be 

troubled. However, I would also say that the violent video game 

playing is not going to make them less troubled. 

Senator BROWNBACK. You would not have any problem with the 

thought that if you are playing these violent video games, it does 

have a stimulating effect on the person that is playing them and 

a stimulating effect that is generally more aggressive? 

Dr. FUNK. I think there is an arousal effect. One of the areas 

that I would like to look at is whether there is also a detachment 

effect and an altered state of consciousness in which they may even 

be more prone to learning, as Dr. Provenzo suggested. So I think 

we need to look at that. 

You heard Danielle talk about her friends having glazed eyes 

after spending time playing violent video games. I think that needs 

to be looked at. 

Senator BROWNBACK. And, Professor Provenzo, your point is 

about this detachment effect, if I am understanding your testimony 

correct, that people are getting separated from reality. In fact, even 

some of the games suggest that they blur the line between reality 

and fantasy. And it stays with you, I think one of them even brags 

in their advertisement on it. 

Dr. PROVENZO. Absolutely. 

Senator BROWNBACK. That is what you truly fear; is that correct? 

Dr. PROVENZO. Yes. I think that the culture of simulation, which 

is becoming very prevalent because of media, including video 

games, which are one form of media, are creating a situation where 

it is very easy to step into these alternative realities and live very 

heavily in them, and then to emerge into a real world, and then 

have one’s behavior based on what one was experiencing in the virtual world. And it operates in lots of ways. 

I think also what it is doing, which is something we can point 

to more directly and a little more easily, is scripting people. We tell 

stories in our culture. And one of the stories we are increasingly 

telling children about and adolescents about is violence and that violence is not really dangerous, but it is just something that is highly romantic, it is hyperreal. So you get this sort of thing that you 

have in a movie like Natural Born Killers, where violence is

extraordinarily romanticized, the main characters become media

figures. 

What then happens, in turn, is you get individuals like Harris 

and Klebold, who, in their tape prior to going out and being involved in the shootings at Columbine, talk about the fact that they 

are going to have their story told as a movie and it is going to be 

perhaps produced or directed by people like Spielberg or Tarantino. 

And I think that is very frightening. 

So what we are doing is we are giving scripts to kids that are 

highly realistic, but, in point of fact, are not about a real world; 

they are about a hyperreality. 

53

Senator BROWNBACK. Is there an analogy here between when we 

used to stylize and romanticize smoking in entertainment and violence now? 

Dr. PROVENZO. I think it is very similar. I think it is sold in some 

of the same ways. This is a romanticization of violence clearly. It 

is hyperreal. 

Senator BROWNBACK. You have got a bathtub full of blood and 

a guy holding a gun. 

Dr. PROVENZO. Right. And it is for a game called Blood, Blood II. 

Senator BROWNBACK. And what was the caption beside it, do you 

recall? 

Dr. PROVENZO. It just says ‘‘Blood?’’ That is the only thing that 

is on the ad. But to kids, this is a very popular game. The kids 

know what it is immediately. 

Senator BROWNBACK. So it stimulates a positive response? 

Dr. PROVENZO. A romanticized response, a notion that violence is 

a style statement. It is something that is cool. I think that is the 

issue about a film like the Matrix, which, as a science fiction fan 

and as an adult, I think is an extremely interesting film and well 

done in many regards. It also has some very disturbing elements 

in terms of the romanticization of violence. And I think kids watching that type of film, I think there are real problems, particularly 

kids who have a tendency toward problems, as Jeanne was indicating. 

Senator BROWNBACK. And children, do not they, Dr. Anderson or 

anybody on the panel, have difficulty recognizing between reality 

and fiction up to a certain age? 

Dr. FUNK. I think it is very important that parents be aware that 

children who are probably below the age of 7 or 8 do have a tendency to become drawn into fantasy and may have difficulty separating it from reality. And we do not know how their developing 

personalities at those ages could be affected by intense exposure to 

this sort of interactive violence. So I think parents need to be especially aware of children under 10 to 12, that they monitor what 

their children are exposed to in terms of violent interactive games. 

Senator BROWNBACK. Because they are so susceptible to that 

blurred vision between reality and whatever image-making that 

they may be drawn into or fantasy? 

Dr. FUNK. That is correct. 

Senator BROWNBACK. Please, Dr. Anderson. 

Dr. ANDERSON. If I might add to that a little bit. I agree with 

Jeanne completely in her statement that we need considerably 

more research on these issues. There are a lot of things that we 

just do not know. And one of them is there are not any studies out 

there, at least in the video game literature, looking at how much 

of a difference in effect does sort of cartoon-like violence—we are 

assuming that that has a less effect than very realistic violence. 

And there are some good reasons for expecting that to be true, but 

there is no research on it. There is no real funding for that kind 

of research. 

When I say that there is clearly a causal impact of playing violent video games on aggressive behavior, there are a handful studies that are the basis of that statement. And I would stand behind 

that statement. But I also would say there are a lot of things we 

54

do not know, a lot of the details. In fact, we do not know hardly 

any of the details. And I think that is what Jeanne really has been 

focusing on, and I would agree with her wholeheartedly on that. 

Senator BROWNBACK. The nation was recently just shocked by a 

6-year-old boy in Michigan taking a gun to school and shooting a 

6-year-old classmate. Yet, I have read one researcher saying that 

he was not surprised, given that it seemed like, in his environment, 

a violent response was not unusual, and the only thing that may 

limit us on how young a child picks up a gun to shoot somebody 

is whether they can lift the gun up or not. 

Did any of you have thoughts about what is happening when we 

have that type of situation, 6-year-olds shooting and killing other 

6-year-olds? 

Dr. FUNK. I think it must be that he did not realize the permanence of that action and the reality of that action. And that is really exactly what Dr. Provenzo is speaking about, that it felt to him 

perhaps like a television experience. 

Dr. PROVENZO. He said at some point, if I remember the quote 

correctly: This is not like TV. This did not come out like TV. He 

was sort of shocked. It just was not working out like a television 

program. 

Dr. FUNK. Right. 

Dr. PROVENZO. I think it is telling you something about where he 

is constructing his view of the world from. It is coming from media 

sources. 

Senator BROWNBACK. These are all three very good statements. 

Professor, yours is a scary one. It is almost like going into genetic 

engineering without any regulatory atmosphere, without any care 

or concern about what mutation we put out there. Am I characterizing what you are saying and capturing your feeling correctly? 

Dr. PROVENZO. Absolutely. I feel very, very strongly that what we 

are doing is we are talking about the construction of our culture, 

and that this is done through educating people. We educate people 

through a very broad selection of sources in contemporary culture, 

and a lot of them are coming from media. 

I think we have a profound obligation to understand what the 

impact of those various media forms are. And what is happening 

right now, because of computerization and the extraordinary ability 

to create simulations of striking, of extraordinary character and nature, we just do not know what the consequences are of these types 

of simulations and the reality that they are constructing. 

Senator BROWNBACK. But the likelihood of negative response is 

extraordinarily high. As a matter of fact, Dr. Anderson, you are 

saying it is causal and it is there. Dr. Funk, you are saying it is 

correlated, at least now, and it could well be causal as well. And 

under any scenario, you are saying this is negative. 

Dr. PROVENZO. Yes. And I would like to make a comment in this 

context about the issue for funding. We are researchers. And I 

think one of the interesting things is, I know at least in my case 

and I suspect in my other co-researchers’ case, this is not research 

that was funded or supported except within our universities. This 

is stuff that we pursued because of our own conviction and our interests. This is not an area that has received a lot of attention. 

55

It is, quite frankly, considered by some of our co-researchers as 

being sort of trivial. And one of the questions I frequently get is: 

Why are you messing around with games and media? There are 

more important issues out there. 

I would argue that this is one of the most profound issues that 

we could be facing. And it is essentially an interdisciplinary issue. 

It involves having to have, I think, the insights of sociologists, psychologists, child development people, educators, and media experts. 

And I think it is a very, very complex question. 

I think we are at a point right now that is very, very similar to 

the emergence of television as a medium, in which we are seeing 

a convergence of these electronic technologies coming together in 

both the Internet, video games, television in a new form of a convergence of these technologies. And I think we have very, very little understanding of what they are about. 

It is sort of like we are in the year 1948 or 1949, when television 

came on the scene, and we are not taking the opportunity to ask 

ourselves: What is it that we need to understand? What is the impact of what we are doing on our children? How is it affecting our 

culture and society? 

This is an enormously important opportunity to ask those types 

of questions. I think we are missing that opportunity by not pursuing this much more aggressively. 

Senator BROWNBACK. One of the video games that we saw a clip 

of from Dr. Walsh was Duke Nukem. It involved sexualizing violence. What problems would one anticipate this posing to young 

children? Particularly since most of these games are marketed to 

and played by boys, what does it do to them? 

Dr. ANDERSON. At this point, there is no directly relevant research on the video game, from the video game perspective. From 

the television and movie violence literature, we can have a pretty 

good guess that the impact is going to be anything but good. It is 

going to lead to the creation of attitudes toward women that are 

attitudes that frankly none of us in this room would view as positive—negative attitudes toward women, objectification of them, increasing sort of this notion that violence against women is okay. 

But, again, there is no research base that I know of directly looking at this from the standpoint of what effect are these kinds of 

video games having. 

Dr. PROVENZO. There are some unexpected consequences, I think, 

that need to be taken into account. When I did my book ‘‘Video 

Kids: Making Sense of Nintendo,’’ I did a content analysis of the 

main themes in the 47 most popular Nintendo games. Nine of the 

10 most popular games—and this is very dated material, this was 

a book published back in the early nineties—but nine out of 10 of 

the most popular games had as their primary theme the murder, 

abduction, or implied rape of a woman. 

Now, when I went out and I interviewed—and some of it is pretty benign, you know, it was rescuing the princess in Princess Zelda. 

Other things were much more graphic and direct, like Street Fighter II. But when I went out and interviewed girls at the elementary 

level about being interested in video games and being interested in 

computers, they said they wanted to play with video games, they 

were interested in them, but, in point of fact, they could not find 

56

games that they liked because they all had sort of stupid boy 

things. I think that is a code for saying they did not like the idea 

of being victims playing the games. 

Now, the video game companies come out and say, and I think 

they are correct, I think it is a logical argument, video games are 

the first entry into the culture of computing for girls. And if girls 

are being discouraged from entering the culture of computing, then 

there is a very serious issue here in terms of gender discrimination 

as they progress through the educational system and into professional careers. 

Essentially, what we are doing is we are really discouraging 

women from seeing computing as an interesting and supportive environment if video games are, in fact, the portal for entering the 

computer culture, which I think it is to a large degree. 

Senator BROWNBACK. That is a troubling aspect, but the 

objectification of women even more so here. 

Dr. Anderson, would it be fair to say that there is a public health 

impact to consuming violent entertainment? 

Dr. ANDERSON. I would definitely say that, that it is a public 

health, or should be, a public health issue. As Jeanne was pointing 

out, sometimes our colleagues think that because the word ‘‘game’’

is associated with some of the work that we are doing, they think 

it is not very serious. And in my own case, I actually had to convince some colleagues that when they were compiling a list of faculty whose research has some relevance to health psychology, that 

my name should be on the list. 

In order to convince them that my name should be on this list, 

I had to point out to them that the Surgeon General at one point 

said that death by murder is in fact a public health issue. That did 

convince them. 

Senator BROWNBACK. Would all of you agree that there is a public health impact to consuming violent entertainment? 

Dr. FUNK. Absolutely. 

Dr. PROVENZO. Absolutely. 

Senator BROWNBACK. As you may know, we give away spectrum 

to broadcasters. And when we do so, there is a requirement that 

their programming, quote, ‘‘serve the public interest.’’ It is a very 

specific item, and it has been in there for a long period of time, 

that since the spectrums are provided, that they must be used in 

the public interest. 

From the public health perspective, does violent entertainment 

serve the public interest or does it undermine it? 

Dr. ANDERSON. I would say it definitely undermines it. It is hard 

to imagine a redeeming feature to any of the really violent media 

that is out there now. And certainly for kids. 

Dr. FUNK. Yes, especially in the case of children. I think it is 

very important that we look carefully at the impact of violent entertainment on children. It certainly does not serve their interest. 

Senator BROWNBACK. Does it serve the public interest? 

Dr. FUNK. I do not believe that it serves the public interest at 

all. But I recognize that there are certain freedoms that we have 

in this country that obviously we all respect. 

Dr. PROVENZO. Let me go back to the storytelling issue. George 

Gerbner, is a wonderful media researcher. He talks about the mean 

57

world phenomena and that television constructs, as an example—

but I think other forms of media—the idea that the world is much 

meaner and crueler than it actually is. I think video games do that, 

too. I think that is unfortunate. I think we need to have better stories sort of percolating through our brains than all the mean stories. 

There is enough meanness in the world. I do not mean to sound 

Pollyanna-ish. It is just, why do we need to excessively emphasize 

this? 

Senator BROWNBACK. Do you believe, from a public health perspective, that violent entertainment does not serve the public interest? 

Dr. PROVENZO. I am not a psychologist. I am not a medical 

health expert. But from the point of view of an educator, I would 

go back to the notion of these are not—I am not saying we should 

not have stories with violence in them. I am not saying that violence does not play a role in art and in the media. I just think that 

the excessive focusing on this to the exclusion of other types of stories is really tragic for our culture. 

Senator BROWNBACK. And harmful to our culture? 

Dr. PROVENZO. And harmful, yes. 

Senator BROWNBACK. Thank you very much. I want to thank all 

the panel members for being here today. I think this has been very 

enlightening. 

I am troubled by what I see. I have five children, and two of 

them are avid video game players. And I was this weekend in a 

video arcade with my children. And you do get very concerned 

about what you see. It is the romanticized violence. It is the excessive violence. It is everywhere. It is every clip. It is all surrounding 

you. 

It is sexualized violence. It is objectification of others. It is removal of any sort of care for anybody else. And this is about killing. 

It is not about caring. We try to monitor that closely, and yet I cannot help but to think this is having an extraordinary negative impact across this country. And that is why we have started this set 

of hearings, to try to get that information. 

I appreciate your thoughts, too, about the need for more research. I am hopeful that we can provide that sort of effort and 

funding from Congress, to be able to do that, so we can spread the 

information about what is taking place and learn better what is occurring. Under any scenario of what any of you have presented, it 

is not positive. It is negative. We just do not know to what degree 

or how completely harmful it is to us. 

The record will remain open for the requisite number of days for 

people to provide additional statements for the record. 

Senator BROWNBACK. With that, again, thank you all. 

I thank the first panelists for coming and sharing your great difficulty that you have been through, as well. 

The hearing is adjourned. 

[Whereupon, at 11:35 a.m., the hearing was adjourned.] 

(59)

1 IDSA’s members only publish software for the home. The arcade game business is a different 

sector with its own representatives. 

A P P E N D I X

PREPARED STATEMENT OF DOUGLAS LOWENSTEIN, PRESIDENT, INTERACTIVE DIGITAL SOFTWARE ASSOCIATION

This testimony is submitted on behalf of the Interactive Digital Software Association 1 the trade body representing U.S. video and computer game software compa- nies that publish games for use in the home. In 1999, the industry generated $6.1 

billion in retail software sales. IDSA’s 32 members account for 90% of the 

edutainment and entertainment software sold in the US. 

I apologize for not being able to appear before the Committee in person. However, 

I had a long standing prior commitment in Arizona which could not be rescheduled. 

I hope the testimony and attachments which follow will be included in the Committee record, and I look forward to a continuing dialogue with the Members about 

these important issues. 

The subject of today’s hearing is The Effects of Interactive Violence on Children. 

I certainly understand the interest in this topic in the aftermath of tragic school 

shootings over the past few years, as well as the frenzied media reports—often inaccurate and misleading—about interactive entertainment in the months after Littleton. This is an important topic which deserves a fair and balanced discussion. 

By far the most exhaustive and objective analysis of this subject was released this 

past December by the Government of Australia in a study entitled ‘‘Computer 

Games and Australians Today.’’ This detailed report, which is provided as an Appendix to my testimony, stands out above all others for two reasons: first, it was 

carried out by a government with a history of tough regulation of entertainment 

content for the purpose of determining whether government regulation is merited; 

second, unlike some of those who will appear before you today, it was written by 

authors who lack preconceived points of view on the issue of whether violent games 

lead to aggressive behavior. I think it is especially helpful to the Committee since 

it provides an independent, unbiased, peer-based evaluation of some of the research 

you will hear about today. I will discuss this study in more detail later in my testimony, but let me quote to you here the key conclusion.

‘‘The accumulating evidence—provided largely by researchers keen to demonstrate the games’ undesirable effects—does indicate that it is very hard to 

find such effects and that they are unlikely to be substantial (emphasis added).’’

The Computer and Video Game Industry Today 

Any dialogue on the effects of violent video and computer games on children must 

be carried out with an understanding of the broader context of the interactive entertainment industry, its products, and its customers. So before addressing the specific 

question of what the prevailing research tells us about the effects of violent video 

and computer games on children, I want to discuss briefly some facts about the 

interactive entertainment industry as it stands today. 

There are six critical points to understand: 

Point One: The most frequent users of computer and video games are adults, not 

kids. This is a surprise to many who still perceive the industry as a toy-based business appealing to adolescent males. But in fact, 70% of the most frequent users of 

PC games are over 18; and 38% of these are over 36. The picture is similar for video 

game consoles: 57% of the most frequent users are over 18, and 20% are over 36. 

Those products that contain violent content, and it is a minority of the total produced (see below), are made to appeal to this adult population. 

Point Two: The vast majority of games do not contain significant levels of violence, 

and the vast majority of top selling games are largely non-violent. Of the top 20 best 

selling games in 1999, none carried a Mature rating from the Entertainment Software Rating Board (ESRB), and only five carried a Teen rating. Looking at games 

sold by type, the data shows that just over 5% of all games sold last year were in 

60

the so-called ‘‘shooter’’ category which received so much attention after Columbine, 

and this category is so broadly defined that it includes such benign games as a Star 

Wars space war title and a version of the classic arcade game Asteroids. In fact, 

if one were to focus strictly on games like Doom, their percentage of the total market is even lower. 

Point Three: There is a mass market for games today which crosses all ages, genders, and tastes. The notion that the industry should homogenize content to appeal 

only to young users makes as much sense as encouraging book publishers to stop 

publishing Steven King novels and only issue books appropriate for young readers. 

Point Four: While the market is diverse, 70% of all games made are rated by the 

ESRB as appropriate for everyone. Only nine percent of the more than 6,000 products 

rated by the ESRB have earned a Mature rating reflecting the presence of significant 

levels of violence. ESRB ratings have been lauded for their accuracy and reliability 

by such diverse observers as Sen. Joe Lieberman and child advocate Peggy Charren. 

And we know these ratings work when parents know about them and use them. Last 

summer, a survey conducted for the ESRB by the highly regarded Peter D. Hart Research Associates, Inc. found that 73% of the parents who were aware of the ESRB 

rating system find it helpful in making informed purchasing decisions. We also know 

that nine out of ten games are actually purchased by adults for their kids so they 

can, if they choose, control the games their kids play. Finally, the Hart survey revealed that three out of four parents under the age of 44 provide a significant level 

of supervision over the games their kids play. So the control really is in their hands. 

Point Five: Between 1991–97, video game sales surged 128%. Meanwhile, between 

1993–97, a period covering the most dramatic growth in video game sales, juvenile 

violent crime fell 40%. No one would say that video games are responsible for falling 

crime rates. But these numbers do suggest that those who point to games as a leading culprit in youth violence do not have the facts on their side. 

Point Six: Many of the games sold here which have prompted concern about the 

effects of interactive entertainment on children are sold all over the world. In fact, 

in some countries, even more violent games are available. Yet, despite growth rates 

in foreign markets similar to those in the U.S., youth violence in these countries does 

not even approach the levels in our country. If interactive entertainment causes violent behavior, why is violent crime among juveniles so low in foreign markets with 

the identical products? This suggests we need to look far deeper to identify the 

causes of youth violence than games. 

Research on Interactive Entertainment 

Let me now turn to the academic research. I have attached as an Appendix to 

my testimony a report analyzing the research on video game violence and other 

issues prepared at IDSA’s request by Jeffrey Goldstein, Ph.D., Department of Social 

and Organizational Psychology at the University of Utrecht in The Netherlands. Dr. 

Goldstein has authored and edited numerous books on media violence, including his 

latest, ‘‘Why We Watch: The Attractions of Violent Entertainment’’, and is a Fellow 

of both the American Psychological Association and the American Psychological Society. 

I will leave the scientific analysis to Dr. Goldstein and the Australian Government’s study, also attached as an Appendix. But I want to make a few general 

points. 

• Australian Research 

Let me turn here to the Australian study. This study updated a 1995 study conducted by Kevin Durkin, Ph.D., Associate Professor of Psychology, University of 

Western Australia. In that study, which reviewed all literature on the effects of 

video games on users, Durkin concluded, ‘‘Overall, evidence is limited, but so far 

does not lend strong support to the claims that computer games play promotes aggressive behavior.’’

As noted earlier, the new study reaches much the same conclusion after evaluating research carried out since the 1995 study was published. 

A few key points from the Australia study are worth reporting. First, government 

researchers found in a national survey that ‘‘most people associate positive feelings 

such as enjoyment, happiness, exhilaration, relaxation, and challenge with playing 

computer games’’: and that ‘‘young players report that aggressive content is not the 

central attraction of games. Many players said that they perceive the aggressive 

content as fantastic and preposterous, with the result that they do not take it seriously; they do not perceive their own actions as harming others since they do not 

believe the characters are real or suffer pain.’’ This punctures the oft-repeated statement that kids prefer violent games or that they take them seriously. 

61

I want to cite briefly a few important studies covered by the Australians. Derek 

Scott, as reported in the Journal of Psychology, had hypothesized that the more aggressive games subjects played, the more aggressive they would become. He set out 

to prove this point of view, and failed. In fact, Scott found that the moderately aggressive games substantially decreased feelings of aggression, whereas the highly 

aggressive game resulted in no more of an increase in aggression than the non aggressive game. ‘‘Results are discussed in terms of a general lack of support for the 

commonly held view that playing aggressive computer games causes an individual 

to feel more aggressive,’’ Scott wrote. There are several other studies which have 

sought to prove that the more aggressive the game played, the more significant the 

impact on behavior, and the have not been able to demonstrate this link, suggesting 

that there is not nexus between the level of aggression in a game and behavior outside it. 

The Australian authors also note a 1997 study by Dutch researchers Van Schie 

and Wiegman who believed that the more users were exposed to violent games, the 

more aggressively they would behave. In fact, they reported, no relationship was 

found between the amount of play and aggressiveness. 

In sum, the Australian Government study concludes that, ‘‘Despite several attempts to find effects of aggressive content in either experimental studies or field 

studies, at best only weak and ambiguous evidence has emerged.’’

• Research Methodology 

In evaluating any research on this topic, pro or con, it is important to carefully 

evaluate the methodology, definitions, and interpretation of the data. In this regard, 

Dr. Goldstein notes: ‘‘Neither the quantity nor the quality of research on video 

games does much to inspire confidence in solid conclusions about their effects. Nearly every study suffers from vague definitions (of violence or aggression), ambiguous 

measurements (confusing aggressive play with aggressive behavior), questionable 

measures of aggression (such as blasts of noise or self-reports of prior aggression), 

or overgeneralizations of the data.’’

Take, for example, the issue of how aggression is defined in the studies. Psychologists define violence or aggression as ‘‘the intentional injury of another person.’’ Yet, 

in video games, there is neither intent to injure nor a living victim. Nonetheless, 

some researchers loosely claim that the goal of certain games is to ‘‘kill’’ opponents. 

But there is no literal killing and it is a massive leap of logic to suggest that vaporizing an animated character leads to or causes real world killing. 

Another flaw in some research on this topic lies in how the research is carried 

out. Many of them, for example, are conducted in lab settings which do not replicate 

even remotely the environment and experience of those who play games for entertainment. 

Dr. Goldstein writes: ‘‘Experiments that claim to study the effects of playing electronic games rarely study play at all. In reality, a game player chooses when and 

what to play, and enters in a different frame of mind than someone who is required 

to ‘play’ on demand. Some have argued that the link between media violence and 

aggressive behavior is as strong as the link between cigarette smoking and cancer. 

This is not so. We can measure the presence or absence of disease with reasonable 

precision, but we cannot easily or reliably measure aggressive behavior in laboratory 

settings. We have only indirect and often questionable measures of aggression at 

our disposal.’’

It is true that some research, including some you may hear about today, claims 

that video games lead to aggressive behavior in the real world. But often these are 

conclusions and speculation not supported by the underlying research. It is argued, 

for example, that video games reinforce murderous behavior! Last time I checked, 

murder was the taking of a human being’s life. Equating that to shooting alien creatures is totally unsubstantiated, and requires one to assume that the player will believe that what is permitted in the fantasy world he or she voluntarily entered is 

sanctioned in real life. 

In fact, rather than suggesting that playing violent games leads to aggressive behavior in the real world, at best there is some weak evidence that this activity may 

lead to more aggressive play. In 1999, British researcher Mark Griffiths reviewed 

the literature on the subject and noted that what some researchers report as aggressive behavior is really only an increase in aggressive play—such as mock battles or 

running around making believe you’re killing aliens—with no intent to injure, as required by the standard psychological definition of aggression. This point cannot be 

overemphasized. There is a world of difference between running around making believe you’re killing aliens, or martial arts play fighting, and picking up a real weapon and shooting your friends. There is not a shred of evidence in the academic litVerDate Apr 24 2002 09:45 May 02, 2003 Jkt 078656 PO 00000 Frm 00065 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6621 S:\WPSHR\GPO\DOCS\78656.TXT SCOM1 PsN: CAROLT
62

erature to support the allegation that a violent video game leads to aggressive behavior in real life.

Some researchers do claim that they have established a link between playing a 

violent game and aggressive behavior, such as Anderson and Dill. But their measure 

of aggressive behavior is not evidence of an actual violent act or the actual intent 

to injure someone, but the intensity and duration of noise blasts initiated by their 

subjects. I am not a psychologist but I would suggest that basing a conclusion that 

violent games lead to aggressive behavior on how loud and long someone blows a 

horn is not a sound basis for policy or pronouncements. Another measure used in 

this research is reaction time to aggressive words flashed on a screen after playing 

a violent game. A faster response was presumed to indicate aggressive thoughts. 

But it means nothing of the sort, anymore than if one played a golf game and then 

responded faster to the word ‘‘putter’’ means that you have golf on the brain. This 

kind of weak data represents the high water mark for research seeking to establish 

that violent video games lead to aggressive behavior, and it is extremely weak and 

ambiguous at best, and is contradicted by other research. 

Yet another weakness in some of the research is that it fails to control for the 

pre-existing tendencies that subjects bring into the research. Griffiths points out 

that more aggressive children may be drawn to more violent games. And the Australian authors suggest that ‘‘it would appear plausible that the direction of effect 

is from player to game. Computer games cannot turn players into boys. A more reasonable interpretation is that people with certain characteristics seek out certain 

types of games. It remains uncertain whether involvement in aggressive games by 

already aggressive individuals contributes to the exacerbation of their aggressive 

tendencies, provides a harmless avenue for its discharge, or makes no difference.’’

Television vs. Interactive Entertainment 

Another statement often made about video games is that one can extrapolate the 

effects of television research to computer games. This is not only bad science, it may 

be wildly misleading. One difference between video games and TV is that video 

game players exert control over what takes place on the screen. They are participants in an interactive system that allows them to regulate the pace and character 

of the game. This, in turn, gives them increased control over their own emotional 

states during play. A substantial body of research demonstrates that perceived control over events reduces their emotional or stressful impact. 

Military Simulators 

Over the last year, much attention has been paid in Congress and the media to 

claims that the military’s use of video game technology in training suggests that 

these games when used in the home train kids to kill. There is no evidence to support this wild claim, the purveyor of it has absolutely no research on which the 

claim is based, and the Pentagon itself dismisses the notion that it uses simulators 

to teach soldiers to kill. I will not dwell on this issue here, but will be happy to 

provide detail on this claim should the Committee desire. 

Proactive Steps by the Video and Computer Game Industry 

Does this mean we do nothing? The answer is no. Last Spring, I testified before 

this Committee and pledged to take a series of steps to address concerns about violent video games, including stepping up promotion of the ESRB, working with retailers to uphold the ratings at the point of sale, and addressing concerns about video 

game advertising. We have redeemed all of these pledged. 

Our industry has been and continues to be extremely proactive in addressing concerns about the content of the small minority of products which give rise to the concerns covered in this hearing. We agree that some games are not appropriate for 

young children. That’s precisely what the ESRB ratings tell consumers. The single 

most meaningful step industry and government can take to protect children from 

games that may not be appropriate for them is to educate parents about how to use 

ESRB ratings. 

To that end, the ESRB mounted a major campaign last holiday season to raise 

awareness and use of its ratings. This campaign included paid ads in national publications with significant parent readership. It also included a PSA featuring golf superstar Tiger Woods encouraging parents to ‘‘Check the Ratings’’ before buying 

games for their kids. ESRB also reached out to various national groups such as the 

PTA, Mothers Against Violence in America, and the YMCA and YWCA to distribute 

information about ESRB ratings to their constituents. 

Another major element of the effort was to encourage retailers to carry information about ESRB ratings in their stores, and to adopt policies to uphold the ratings 

at the point of sale by not selling Mature or Adult Only games to persons under 

17. Such national chains as Toys ‘R Us, Babbages, Electronics Boutique, and 

63

Funcoland all agreed to either actively restrict sales of ‘‘M’’ rated games to persons 

under 17 or to use their best efforts to prevent such sales. In addition, the ESRB 

printed and distributed over 5 million brochures on how to use ESRB ratings to retailers. 

Separately, the three major video game console hardware companies—Nintendo, 

Sega, and Sony—all agreed this Fall to include in their hardware packages information on the ESRB, a step which put critical ratings information into the hands of 

millions of new consumers this holiday season. 

IDSA was active in other areas as well. This Fall, our Board of Directors created 

a new Advertising Review Council within the independent ESRB organization to develop and enforce an expanded advertising Code which for the first time includes 

content standards and various restrictions on the placement of ads for video and PC 

games. The new ARC opened its doors for business February 1. The ARC has

secured support for its content guidelines from the three major video game magazine chains who have agreed to adopt the ARC code as their internal standards and 

practices. 

We’re also pleased that the ESRB reached an agreement late last year with AOL 

in which AOL will adopt the ESRB ratings on its game service, a major step toward 

expanding ESRB’s Internet presence. 

We also welcome the study by the Surgeon General of the United States into the 

causes of youth violence, and will cooperate with that office as it proceeds. 

Late last year, the IDSA conducted research asking parents who is responsible for 

controlling the video games children play. The overwhelming majority of respondents said it is up to the parents. Our industry will continue to make products that 

appeal to people of all tastes and interests. Some of these will not be appropriate 

for younger consumers. But absent unconstitutional restrictions on content, and absent any compelling scientific research showing that playing violent games is harmful, the best way to ensure that kids don’t play games that are not suitable for them 

is to maximize parental awareness and use of the existing rating system. Our industry pledges to you that we will continue to actively promote the ESRB system to 

increase its utilization by parents, and we hope you and others who share your concerns will join us in that ongoing campaign. 

Conclusion 

While the subject of this hearing is the effects of violent interactive games on children, I want to briefly point out that there is a growing body of evidence that video 

games have many positive effects on players, including enhancing educational performance, improving spatial skills, improving cognitive development, and as therapeutic tools to treat attention deficit disorders, among other things. I hope we can 

address these benefits at some future hearing rather than continually and exclusively focusing on the issue of violence. 

You will hear from witnesses who have generally expressed concern about the effects of interactive entertainment on children. We did provide the Committee with 

the names of other experts who do not share these views, and we were disappointed 

that none of them were asked to appear, or that the Committee did not seek out 

those with different views on its own. For this reason, we have included two additional submissions which evaluate all of the current research on the topic and reach 

the conclusion that there is no compelling research which supports the belief that 

playing violent video games in the real world causes aggressive behavior in the real 

world. Put another way, there is no scientific basis to argue that entering the fantasy world of Doom in the home using a mouse causes players to gun down their 

friends in the school yard. 

But even if one were to agree with those who believe there is cause for concern 

about the effects of violent entertainment on children, the question is what can be 

done about it? Video games and computer games are protected forms of expression 

under our Constitution. Some may not like particular games, but the case law is 

clear that efforts by government to regulate violent content is unconstitutional. For 

this reason, I appreciate the fact that Senator Brownback has publicly said that this 

hearing is not for the purpose of pursuing legislation to regulate the video game or 

entertainment industries. Thank you. 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF JEFFREY GOLDSTEIN, PH.D., DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL AND

ORGANIZATIONAL PSYCHOLOGY, UNIVERSITY OF UTRECHT, THE NETHERLANDS

My name is Jeffrey Goldstein. I received a PhD in psychology from Ohio State 

University, following which I was professor of psychology at Temple University 

(Philadelphia) for nearly 20 years. Since 1992 I have been with the Department of 

64

Social and Organizational Psychology at the University of Utrecht, in the Netherlands. Among the books I have written or edited are Sports, Games and Play (Lawrence Erlbaum Associates), Aggression and Crimes of Violence (Oxford University 

Press), Toys, Play and Child Development (Cambridge University Press), and in 

1998, Why We Watch: The Attractions of Violent Entertainment (Oxford University 

Press). I am a Fellow of both the American Psychological Association and the American Psychological Society. I serve on the academic advisory committee of the Entertainment Software Rating Board (New York), which developed a widely used system 

for rating video and online games. 

This overview of research on the effects of electronic games was prepared at the 

request of the Interactive Digital Software Association (Washington, D.C.), for whom 

I regularly review research on this subject. I have read nearly all the published 

English-language research on electronic games, which includes video and computer 

games, CD–ROM and online games. Neither the quantity nor the quality of research 

on video games does much to inspire confidence in solid conclusions about their effects. Nearly every study suffers from unclear definitions (of violence or aggression), 

ambiguous measurements (confusing aggressive play with aggressive behavior, or 

using questionable measures of aggression, such as blasts of noise or self-reports of 

prior aggression), and overgeneralizations from the data. Experiments that claim to 

study the effects of playing electronic games rarely study play at all. In reality, a 

game player chooses when and what to play, and enters in a different frame of mind 

than someone who is required to ‘play’ on demand. 

Some have argued that the link between media violence and aggressive behavior 

is as strong as the link between cigarette smoking and cancer. This is not so. We 

can measure the presence or absence of disease with reasonable precision, but we 

cannot easily or reliably measure aggressive behavior in laboratory settings. We 

have only indirect and often questionable measures of aggression at our disposal. 

Research on Electronic Games 

There are 4 types of research on electronic games: 1) Demographic surveys describe who plays which games. 2) Correlational studies examine the relationship between video game play and other behaviors, such as aggression or school performance. 3) Experiments seek to establish cause-and-effect relationships by requiring 

some individuals to play video games and others to play other (or no) games. Measurements are then taken to establish the effects of video games. 4) Applied research 

uses electronic games as a medium for education, training, medicine, and therapy. 

The file drawer problem 

Published research in scholarly journals does not represent all the research on 

electronic games. Studies that fail to find statistically significant results are less 

likely to be accepted for publication. So the published record is an unknown fraction 

of all research, and it tends to consist of those studies with statistically significant 

results. This is known as ‘the file drawer problem’ because studies that do not find 

any effects of video games remain unpublished, locked away in the researcher’s files. 

Surveys 

Industry people can provide demographics of games players of the growth of electronic games from a youth activity to one that cuts across all ages and both sexes. 

Research by social scientists tends to focus on potential problem areas, such as video 

game ‘addiction’ or the relationship between the extent of gaming and school performance. Concerns about addiction to video games have lately given way to concerns about internet addiction (Kraut, et al. 1998). 

Studies that consider addiction to video games offer snapshots in time rather than 

dynamic pictures of play over a period of weeks or months. At any given moment, 

there are players deeply immersed in the gaming experience, but this obsession is 

temporary, according to a large-scale Australian survey (Durkin 1998). 

Barrie Gunter (1998) concludes in his review of video game research, ‘‘There is 

international evidence that video games do not preoccupy children and teenagers to 

the exclusion of other pursuits. . . . Some children may admit to playing more than 

they think they should, but few signs have emerged so far that video game addiction 

is a growing social problem. Video game players do not differ significantly from nonplayers in terms of other activities, including sports.’’

Correlates of Violent Video Game Play 

Some studies compare the most frequent players of electronic games with those 

who play less often (for example, Anderson & Dill in press; Griffiths & Hunt 1998; 

Roe & Muijs 1998). In some studies, frequent play with violent video games is correlated with lower school performance, more aggression, delinquency, and behavioral and emotional problems. The heaviest users of video game are males, and 

65

those who prefer violent video games are most likely to be above average in aggression, and to show other characteristics of aggressive men: namely, poorer school performance, less interest in bookish activities, more delinquency, and so on. These correlations do not imply causality. According to one study (Roe & Muijs 1998), poor 

performance in school motivates some boys to achieve success in the world of video 

games. Following are descriptions of recent correlational studies of violent electronic 

games. 

Jeanne B. Funk and her colleagues (1999) claimed to examine whether a preference for violent electronic games is ‘‘associated with an increase in problem behaviors’’ in adolescents. Boys and girls at a middle school and at a school for children 

with behavioral problems completed questionnaires about their video game experience and problem behaviors. The children were divided in half according to whether 

they played video games ‘‘high in violence’’ or ‘‘low in violence.’’ For girls, playing 

violent video games was not associated with any clinical problems. Those who 

played violent video games scored higher on something called ‘‘thought problems,’’

but this is not further defined or described. Boys who played video games low in 

violence had higher delinquency scores than boys who played more violent video 

games! Other studies also fail to find that higher levels of violence in video games 

has stronger effects than lower levels of violence (for example, Anderson & Ford, 

1986). 

Comments on the Funk et al. study 

The study cannot possibly show whether violent electronic games are related to 

an increase in adolescent problems because it does not measure changes in problem 

behaviors. It is a static study that measures self-reports of play with violent games 

and self-reported problem behaviors at one point in time. The study did not find 

more violent video game playing among children at the school for adolescents with 

behavior problems. Suppose instead of finding very little, Funk et al. had found that 

those who played violent electronic games had more behavior problem behaviors. 

What would that tell us about violent electronic games? It would not imply that 

games cause these problems. Some youngsters with problems may use video games 

as a way of coping with problems. There is no way to draw sound conclusions from 

such a study. 

Craig Anderson and Karen Dill (in press) conducted a study on the correlates of 

experience with violent video games. Seventy-eight men and 149 women undergraduates at a midwestern university completed questionnaires about their exposure to video game violence and paper-and-pencil measures of delinquency, aggression, irritability, world view, and grade point average. The university students indicated their favorite games, and were asked to recall how often they played video 

games in recent months, during the 11th and 12th grades, during the 9th and 10th 

grades, and during the 7th and 8th grades. Also measured were perceptions of crime 

and feelings of safety. 

Results. As in some previous research, Anderson and Dill found a positive correlation between experience with violent video games and measures of aggression and 

delinquency. This does not mean that the former is a cause of the latter. Highly aggressive youngsters are attracted to violent video games (Goldstein, 1998). Both aggression/delinquency and involvement with violent video games may be the result 

of other factors, such as a high need for arousal, excitement, or attention. Perception 

of crime was not significantly related to play with violent video games. George 

Gerbner and others found that people with the most exposure to television overestimate crime rates. Anderson and Dill did not find that here; experience with violent 

video games was not related to perception of crime. 

Anderson and Dill write of their data as though they are describing a causal sequence. ‘‘The positive association between violent video games and aggressive personality is consistent with a developmental model in which extensive exposure to 

violent video games (and other violent media) contributes to the creation of an aggressive personality.’’ In sum, Study 1 indicates that concern about the deleterious 

effects of violent video games on delinquent behavior, aggressive and nonaggressive, 

is legitimate,’’ write Anderson and Dill. But their study has nothing to do with the 

effects of video games, deleterious or otherwise [emphasis added]. Correlation is not 

causality, no matter how tempted one may be to argue otherwise. The authors acknowledge this when they write, ‘‘However, the correlational nature of Study 1 

means that causal statements are risky at best. It could be that the obtained video 

game violence links to aggressive and nonaggressive delinquency are wholly due to 

the fact that highly aggressive individuals are especially attracted to violent video 

games.’’

66

Experiments with Violent Video Games 

Much of what is written about video games with violent themes assumes that

the media (including electronic games) affect vulnerable groups of people in ways

that go against their grain, a ‘magic ray’ approach to the media. In contrast, I believe that people are extremely selective in the media they use and attend to, and 

that the effects the media have on them are pretty much the effects that the user 

is seeking. 

Physiological reactions to video games 

Electronic games are challenging, sometimes frustrating, exciting, surprising, and 

often funny. While playing, individuals may experience a range of emotions accompanied by physiological changes. In one study with university students, heart rate 

accelerated while playing a violent video game, and returned to baseline within 15 

minutes following play (Griffiths & Dancaster 1995). 

Winning a competitive video game did not result in a rise in testosterone level, 

as happens with the victors of competitive sports and chess matches (Mazur, et al., 

1997). This may be because players do not regard video games as truly competitive, 

but see video game play instead as a cooperative activity. 

Positron emission tomography (PET) scans were taken while healthy men played 

a video game. The neurotransmitter Dopamine, thought to be involved in learning, 

reinforcement of behavior, attention, and sensorimotor coordination, was released in 

the brain during play (Koepp 1998). 

Violence and ‘violence’—Matters of definition 

When people refer to ‘‘violence in the media’’ or ‘‘violent video games’’ they rarely 

distinguish between real violence—people hurting one another as in warfare or a 

slap in the face—and symbolic or fantasy violence, in which characters engage in 

mock battle. Nor do they distinguish between cartoon characters, fantasy figures in 

electronic games, dramatic violence portrayed by human actors, and real violence 

in news and documentary programs. Psychologists define violence or aggression as 

‘‘the intentional injury of another person.’’ However, there is neither intent to injure 

nor a living victim in an electronic game. Anderson and Dill (in press) write that 

‘‘the goal of the player in Mortal Kombat is to kill any opponent he faces.’’ But there 

is no literal killing here; something else is going on, namely, play and fantasy. 

When discussing ‘‘violence in the media’’ people do not usually mean literal violence. 

An article by Dill and Dill (1998) further illustrates this confusion. They write, ‘‘If violent video game play indeed depicts victims as deserving attacks, and if these 

video games tend to portray other humans as ‘targets,’ then reduced empathy is 

likely to be a consequence of violent video game play, thus putting the player at 

risk for becoming a more violent individual.’’ The Dills write that perhaps video 

games would have stronger effects than television because of the active involvement 

of players. They argue that players must ‘‘act aggressively’’ and are then reinforced 

for this ‘‘aggression.’’ ‘‘In violent video games, aggression is often the main goal, and 

killing adversaries means winning the game and reaping the benefits. While in real 

life, murder is a crime, in a violent video game, murder is the most reinforced behavior. . . . The violent video game player is an active aggressor’’ according to the 

Dills, and ‘‘the players’ behavioral repertoire is expanded to include new and varied 

aggressive alternatives.’’

Likewise, Anderson and Dill (in press) write, ‘‘Each time people play violent video 

games, they rehearse aggressive scripts which teach and reinforce vigilance for enemies, aggressive action against others, expectations that others will behave aggressively, positive attitudes towards use of violence, and beliefs that violent solutions 

are effective and appropriate. Furthermore, repeated exposure to graphic scenes of 

violence is likely to be desensitizing. . . . Long-term video game players can become 

more aggressive in outlook, perceptual biases, attitudes, beliefs, and behavior than 

they were before the repeated exposure. . . .’’ To my knowledge, there are no studies of the long-term effects of video games. There is no evidence that video games 

actually have any of these effects. 

Effects of violent video games 

Lt. Col. Dave Grossman (1995; 1999) has stressed the similarities between combat 

training and violent video games. He could just as logically have stressed their differences. Among the differences between training soldiers for combat and playing 

video games are:

• The motivations for undertaking the tasks are different. 

• The individual can play or not, and can come and go, as he pleases. 

• The intentions of the players are different. 

• The players’ beliefs about what they are doing and why differ. 

67

• There are many cues in video games that ‘this is play’ (for example, sound 

effects, fantasy figures, scorekeeping). 

• The behaviors reinforced (play vs. aggression) and the reinforcements themselves are different. 

• The social relationships among the individuals involved are different.

Experiments on the effects of violent video games on the behavior of elementary 

school children typically fail to distinguish between aggressive play and aggressive 

behavior. After playing a Mortal Kombat-style video game, children, boys especially, 

are likely to engage in martial arts play-fighting. To many adult observers, the boys 

are thought to be acting aggressively, but in fact are engaged in aggressive play, where there is no intent to injure anyone (Silvern & Williamson 1987). Media violence research is clouded by such ambiguities. 

According to British psychologist Mark Griffiths (1999) ‘‘the majority of studies on 

very young children tend to show that children become more aggressive after playing or watching a violent video game, but these were all based on the observation 

of free play.’’ This is precisely the problem, confusing aggressive play with aggressive behavior, that leads to fuzzy conclusions. In the rare study that measures both 

aggressive play and aggressive behavior (for instance, Cooper & Mackie 1986; 

Hellendoorn & Harinck 1998), violent games affect the former but do not affect aggressive behavior. 

In part because of these ambiguities, those who review the existing research on 

violent video games arrive at different conclusions. Among recent reviews, some conclude that violent video games are a cause of violent behavior (Anderson & Dill in 

press; Ballard & Lineberger 1999; Dill & Dill 1998), while others conclude that 

there is insufficient evidence to draw any conclusion (Australia 1999; Durkin 1995; 

Gunter 1998; Griffiths 1999). Anderson & Dill review published studies on video 

games and aggressive behavior, and conclude as have others, that every study suffers from flaws in methodology, ambiguous definitions, is open to alternative explanations, or results in inconsistent findings. ‘‘In sum,’’ they write, ‘‘there is little experimental evidence that the violent content of violent video games can increase aggression in the immediate situation.’’

Anderson and Dill experiment 

In an experiment by Anderson and Dill (in press), students played a violent video 

game (Wolfenstein 3D) or a nonviolent game (Myst) that were similar in their degree of difficulty, enjoyment, and frustration (although men considered Wolfenstein 

3D more exciting than Myst). One hundred four women and 106 men from a midwestern U.S. university visited the laboratory twice, playing each assigned video 

game 3 times for 15 minutes per time. In the first session participants played the 

game, completed the affective and world view measures, and played the game again, 

then completed the cognitive measure. The cognitive measure of aggressive thoughts 

was the time it took to recognize aggressive words (for example, ‘murder’) flashed 

on a computer screen. Aggressive thoughts were not measured directly in this experiment, only reaction time to words flashed on a screen. 

During the 2nd session, particiants played the game again for 15 minutes and 

completed the behavioral aggression measure. Aggressive behavior was measured 

during a ‘competitive reaction time task,’ in which the participant is told to push 

a button faster than an opponent. If participants lose this race, they receive a noise 

blast at a level supposedly set by their opponent. As their measure of aggressive 

behavior Anderson and Dill use the intensity and duration of noise blasts the participant chooses to deliver to the opponent. They write that this is ‘‘a widely used and 

externally valid measure of aggressive behavior,’’ but this is open to doubt because 

there is nothing in this method nor in the instructions to the participants to indicate 

that there was any intention to injure anyone in this situation. 

Results: Greater exposure to violent video games predicted greater aggressive behavior, particularly among those who were high in aggressiveness to begin with, 

and this was especially the case with men. The effect of violent video games was 

no different from that of nonviolent games on state hostility, or on crime perception 

or feelings of safety. The average reaction time to aggressive words was faster 

among those who had played the violent video game. The researchers interpret this 

to mean ‘‘the violent video game primed aggressive thoughts. This result suggests 

one potential way in which playing violent video games might increase aggressive 

behavior, by priming aggressive knowledge structures.’’ [Does reacting quickly to aggressive words indicate aggressive thoughts?] 

There were ‘‘absolutely no statistically significant effects of any of the independent 

variables—sex, trait irritability, video game type—on either the win or lose noise 

intensity settings.’’ Participants who had played Wolfenstein 3D delivered significantly longer noise blasts after lose trials than those who played the nonviolent 

68

game Myst. ‘‘Playing a violent video game increased the aggressiveness of participants after they had been provoked by their opponent’s noise blast.’’

Anderson and Dill write, ‘‘The present research demonstrated that in both a correlational investigation using self-reports of real world aggressive behaviors and an 

experimental investigation using a standard, objective laboratory measure of aggression, violent video game play was positively related to increases in aggressive behavior. . . . The convergence of findings across such disparate methods lends considerable strength to the main hypothesis that exposure to violent video games can increase aggressive behavior . . . The present results confirm that parents, educators, and society in general should be concerned about the prevalence of violent 

video games in modern society, especially given recent advances in the realism of 

video game violence. . . . The results of the current investigation suggest that 

short-term video game violence effects may operate primarily through the cognitive, 

and not the affective route to aggressive behavior . . . Thus, the danger in exposure to violent video games seems to be in the ideas they teach and not primarily 

in the emotions they incite in the player. The more realistic the violence, the more 

the player identifies with the aggressor. The more rewarding the video game, the 

greater potential for learning aggressive solutions to conflict situations.’’ [emphasis 

added] 

Comments on the Anderson and Dill experiment. 

Can one generalize from the Anderson and Dill studies to real-world video game 

players? Do their results justify the need to ‘‘be concerned about the prevalence of 

violent video games,’’ and their increasing realism? Their studies do not address the 

realism of video games, or identification, or the effects of rewards, or attitudes toward conflict resolution. Do more realistic games have greater impact? Do players 

really learn that aggression is the solution to conflict? We do not know. 

There is no sense in which the participants in this experiment played a video 

game, violent or otherwise. They were instructed to play a video game for a few 

minutes. Whatever effects are found may not generalize to the natural play setting 

in which real gaming takes place. Playing a game at the urging of an experimenter 

does not resemble the world of play. Almost no studies of the presumed harmful effects of video games have considered how and why people play them, or play at all. 

No evidence is given that reaction time to aggressive words is a valid measure 

of aggressive thoughts, or that noise blasts are intended to injure another person. 

Real acts of violence have been modeled on media images. The media may give 

form to aggressive behavior. But I am aware of no evidence that the media motivate

individuals to commit aggression if they are not otherwise inclined to do so. 

The Attractions of Violent Entertainment 

Some critics condemn the makers of violent entertainment for marketing ‘violence 

for violence sake’ (Grossman 1995, 1999). But that is not what people seek. People 

are highly selective in the violence they seek or tolerate. Violence, if it is to be entertaining, must fulfill certain requirements: it must have a moral story in which good 

triumphs over evil, and it must carry cues to its unreality—music, sound effects, editing, a fantasy story-line, cartoon-like characters. 

The audience for violent entertainment 

Many who condemn violence in video games eagerly devour the latest novel by 

Stephen King. Men particularly like violent entertainment. For the majority of consumers, the violence is a means to ends, a device valued more for what it does than 

for what it is. The consumers of violent entertainment do not share a single motive. 

Some play violent video games to experience excitement, some to become experts 

and impress their friends, others because the games are challenging. Some young 

people play widely vilified games in order to elicit predictable, if negative, reactions 

from teachers, parents, or girls. Immersion in a fantasy world is also conducive to 

the pleasant transcendental experience known as ‘‘flow’’ (Csikszentmihalyi 1990). 

People can choose the degree of emotional content with which they are most comfortable, just as they do when selecting music to listen to. An undeniable characteristic of violent imagery is its emotional wallop; it gives most people a jolt. Not 

everyone finds this kind of stimulation pleasant, but some do. Even if players find 

the violence repugnant, they can fine-tune their involvement in the game by focusing on its’ graphics, technique, or on their score, in order to control their emotional 

involvement. 

Youngsters are willing to expose themselves to unpleasant images because the 

benefits of doing so outweigh the costs. Players, like media researchers, have overriding reasons for engaging with violent themes. 

69

Social identity 

Violent entertainment appeals primarily to males, and it appeals to them mostly 

in groups. These are social occasions, particularly suitable for ‘male bonding’ and 

communicating a masculine identity. Boys may play violent video games alone in 

their rooms, but they are almost certain to talk about them with their friends. In 

a survey of Canadian youth, Stephen Kline (1999) observes, ‘‘For many of the male 

gamers, video gaming was part of a network of friendships and social affiliations 

making gaming into a cool thing.’’

The importance of context 

Both the context of violent images and the circumstances in which they are consumed play a crucial role in their appeal, and probably in their effects. In order to 

experience pleasure from exposure to violent images players must feel relatively 

safe in their surroundings. Furthermore, there must be cues that the violent images 

are produced for purposes of entertainment and consumption. Bloody images lose 

their appeal when there are few cues to their unreality (McCauley 1998). If the violent imagery does not itself reveal its unreality, the physical environment may do 

so. We are aware of holding a joystick or remote control, of playing a game on a 

console or computer screen. Without background music, special effects, or fantasy 

characters, images of violence are unattractive. 

Electronic Games in Education, Therapy, and Science 

In her book Playing with Power, Marsha Kinder (1991) notes that video games 

‘have considerable educational and therapeutic value for a diverse range of groups—

including adolescents, athletes, would-be pilots, the elderly in old-age homes, cancer 

patients undergoing chemotherapy, stroke victims, quadriplegics, and young children suffering from palsy, brain damage, and Down’s syndrome.’

Electronic games are used to teach and reinforce skills in education, science and 

medicine. Games are used increasingly to study learning (Blumberg 1998; Rieber 

1996), memory (Shewokis 1997), motivation (Wong 1996), cognitive processes 

(Kappas 1999), attention and attention deficits (Pope 1996), and spatial abilities 

(Subrahmanyam & Greenfield 1998; Tkacz 1998). Electronic games have been developed to teach safe sexual practices to adolescents, and to help diabetic children better manage their illness (Lieberman 1998). 

Sometimes the hardware is of interest. Commercial electronic games have much 

to recommend them as psychological tests. The equipment is robust, inexpensive, 

small, light and portable, scoring is completely objective and the rules for any given 

game are the same for every player. An American mountaineering expedition to the 

7,700 meter high Tirich Mir used two games to measure performance, Simon Says 

to measure short-term memory, and Split Second to measure pattern recognition 

and reaction time. The games operated normally even at 7,000 meters under the extreme conditions of the climb (but the batteries had to be warmed by the climbers). 

‘‘What seems beyond doubt is the possibility of testing performance under extreme 

conditions by means of electronic games’’ (Jones 1984). 

Spatial abilities 

Video games are among the most successful means of reducing the traditional sex 

difference in spatial abilities (Subrahmanyam & Greenfield 1994). 

Video Games in Therapy 

Attention deficit/hyperactivity disorder is characterized by the inability to sustain 

attention long enough to perform activities such as schoolwork or organized play. 

Treatments include brainwave biofeedback training, in which systems feed back information to trainees showing how well they are producing the brainwave patterns 

that indicate attention. Pope and Bogart (1996) developed a video game that expands this concept by becoming more difficult as the player’s brainwaves indicate 

that attention is waning. The trainee can succeed at the game only by maintaining 

an adequate level of attention. 

Video Games and the Elderly 

Electronic games can speed reaction times, hone cognitive skills, and may retard 

memory decline among the elderly (Drew & Waters 1986; Dustman 1992; Goldstein 

1997). 

What’s Missing from Games Research? 

The motivation to play is powerful. In seeking a site for a research project, I visited rehabilitation centers for people with severe handicaps. In nearly all of them, 

people were playing computer or video games, one man with his feet because he did 

not have the use of his arms, and one woman who had no movement in her arms 

70

or legs played by blowing through a straw. It is precisely this spirit of play that 

is missing from psychological experiments of video games. 

Young people bring their entertainment choices and experiences to bear on their 

intense concerns with questions of identity, belonging, and independence. Much of 

their public behavior—the clothes they wear, the music they listen to, and the 

games they play—has a social purpose. How else are we to understand the fads of 

body piercing and tattooing, or the popularity of horror films or violent video games, 

except in reference to peer groups? Until researchers look, not at isolated individuals forced to play a video game for a few minutes as part of a laboratory experiment, but at game players as members of extended social groups, we are unlikely 

to come to terms with violent, or any other, entertainment. 

References 

Anderson, C. A., & K. E. Dill. (in press). Video games and aggressive thoughts, 

feelings, and behavior in the laboratory and in life. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology.

Anderson, C. A., & C. M. Ford. (1986). Affect of the game player: Short-term effects of highly and mildly aggressive video games. Personality and Social Psychology 

Bulletin, vol. 12, 390–402. 

Ballard, M. E., & R. Lineberger. (1999). Video game violence and confederate gender: Effects on reward and punishment given by college males. Sex Roles, vol. 41, 

541–558. 

Blumberg, F. C. (1998). Developmental differences at play: Children’s selective attention and performance in video games. Journal of Applied Developmental Psychology, vol. 19, 615–624. 

Cooper, J., & D. Mackie. (1986). Video games and aggression in children. Journal 

of Applied Social Psychology, vol. 16, 726–744. 

Csikszentmihalyi, M. (1990). The flow experience. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. 

Dill, K. & J. Dill. (1998). Video game violence: A review of the empirical literature. Aggression and Violent Behavior, vol. 3, 407–428. 

Drew, B., & J. Waters. (1986). Video games: Utilization of a novel strategy to improve perceptual motor skills and cognitive functioning in the non-institutionalized 

elderly. Cognitive Rehabilitation, vol. 4, 26–31. 

Durkin, K. (1995). Computer Games, Their Effects on Young People: A Review. Office of Film & Literature Classification. Sydney. [255 Elizabeth Street, Sydney NSW 

2000, Australia] 

Durkin, K., & J. Low. (1998). Children, media and aggression: Current research 

in Australia and New Zealand. In U. Carlsson & C. von Feilitzen (Eds.), Children 

and Media Violence. UNESCO International Clearinghouse on Children and Violence on the Screen. nordicom. Goteborg, Sweden: Goteborg University. 

Dustman, R. E., R. Emmerson, L. Steinhaus, D. Shearer,, & T. Dustman. (1992). 

The effects of videogame playing on neuropsychological performance of elderly individuals. Journal of Gerontology, Psychological Sciences, vol. 47, 168–171. 

Funk, J. B., J. Hagan, J. Schimming, W. A. Bullock, D. Buchman, & M. Myers. 

Playing violent electronic games and indices of psychopathology in adolescents. 

(1999). Paper presented at the American Psychological Association annual convention. 

Goldstein, J. (1999). The attractions of violent entertainment. Media Psychology,

vol. 1, 271–282. 

Goldstein, J. (1998). Why We Watch: The Attractions of Violent Entertainment.

New York: Oxford University Press. 

Goldstein, J., L. Cajko, M. Oosterbroek, M. Michielsen, O. van Houten, & F. 

Salverda. (1997). Video games and the elderly. Social Behavior & Personality, vol. 

25, 345–352. 

Griffiths, M. (1999). Violent video games and aggression: A review of the literature. Aggression & Violent Behavior, vol. 4, 203–212. 

Griffiths, M., & I. Dancaster. (1995). The effect of Type A personality on physiological arousal while playing computer games. Addictive Behaviors, vol. 20, 543–548. 

Griffiths, M., & N. Hunt. (1998). Dependence on computer games by adolescents. 

Psychological Reports, vol. 82, 475–480. 

Grossman, D. (1995). On Killing: The Psychological Cost of Learning to Kill in 

War and Society. Boston: Little Brown. 

Grossman, D. (1999). Stop Teaching Our Kids to Kill: A Call to Action against TV, 

Movie & Video Game Violence. New York: Crown. 

Gunter, B. (1998). The Effects of Video Games on Children: The Myth Unmasked.

Sheffield, UK: Sheffield Academic Press. 

Hellendoorn, J., & F. Harinck. (1997). War toy play and aggression in Dutch kindergarten children. Social Development, vol. 6, 340–354. 

71

Jones, M. B. (1984). Video games as psychological tests. Simulation & Gaming,

vol. 15, 131–157. 

Kappas, A., & A. Pecchinenda. (1999). Don’t wait for the monsters to get you: A 

video game task to manipulate appraisals in real-time. Cognition & Emotion, vol. 

13, 119–124. 

Kinder, M. (1991). Playing with Power in Movies, Television and Video Games.

Berkeley: University of California Press. 

Kline, S. (1999). Video game culture: Leisure and play preferences of British Columbia teens. Simon Fraser University, Burnaby, B.C., Canada. 

Koepp, M. J., R. N. Gunn, A. D. Lawrence, V. J. Cunningham, A. Dagher, T. 

Jones, D. J. Brooks, C. J. Bench, & P. M. Grasby. (1998). Evidence for striatal 

dopamine release during a video game. Nature, vol. 393, 266–268. 

Kraut, R., M. Patterson, V. Lundmark, S. Kiesler, T. Mukopadhyay, & W. 

Scherlis. (1998). Internet paradox: A social technology that reduces social involvement and psychological well-being? American Psychologist, vol. 53, 1017–1031. 

Lieberman, D. A. (1998). Health education video games for children and adolescents: theory, design, and research findings. Paper presented at the annual meeting 

of the International Communication Association, Jerusalem, 1998. (available online 

at www.clickhealth.com/lieb98/diabetes.htm) 

Mazur, A., E. J. Susman & S. Edelbrock. (1997). Sex difference in testosterone response to a video game contest. Evolution and Human Behavior, vol. 18, 317–326. 

McCauley, C. (1998). When screen violence is not attractive. In J. Goldstein (Ed.), 

Why We Watch: The Attractions of Violent Entertainment. New York: Oxford University Press. 

Pope, A. T., & E. H. Bogart. (1996). Extended attention span training system: 

Video game neurotherapy for attention deficit disorder. Child Study Journal, vol. 

26, 39–50. 

Rieber, L. P. (1996). Seriously considering play: Designing interactive learning environments based on the blending of microworlds, simulations and games. Educational Technology Research and Development, vol. 44 (no. 2), 43–58. 

Roe, K., & D. Muijs. (1998). Children and computer games: A profile of the heavy user. European Journal of Communication, vol. 13, 181–200. 

Shewokis, P. A. (1997). Is the contextual interference effect generalizable to computer games? Perceptual and Motor Skills, vol. 84, 3–15. 

Silvern, S. B., & P. A. Williamson. (1987). The effects of video game play on young 

children’s aggression, fantasy, and prosocial behavior. Journal of Applied Developmental Psychology, vol. 8, 453–462. 

Subrahmanyam, K., & P.M. Greenfield. (1998). Computer games for girls: What 

makes them play? In J. Cassell & H. Jenkins (Eds.), From Barbie to Mortal Kombat: 

Gender and Computer Games. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. 

Tkacz, S., & P. LaForce. (1998). Sex of player and practice in lateral discrimination and videogame performance. Perceptual and Motor Skills, vol. 84, 3–15. 

Wong, K. K. (1996). Video game effect on computer-based learning design. British 

Journal of Educational Technology, vol. 27, 230–232. 

The Australian Study has been retained in the Committee files. 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF THE VIDEO SOFTWARE DEALERS ASSOCIATION

Mr. Chairman,

Thank you for allowing the Video Software Dealers Association (VSDA) to submit 

a statement for the record at the hearing on the impact of interactive violence on 

children. 

We want to assure the committee that VSDA and our members are concerned 

about the level of youth violence in our society. While we have no expertise in the 

relationship between video game violence and youth violence, the home video industry believes we have a role to play in helping parents ensure that their children do 

not gain access to video games that the parents deem inappropriate for them. We 

want to share with you the actions we have taken to assist parents in this regard 

and enlist your involvement in this effort. 

Established in 1981, the Video Software Dealers Association is a not-for-profit 

international trade association for the $17 billion home entertainment industry. 

VSDA represents over 3,000 companies throughout the United States, Canada, and 

22 other countries. Membership comprises the full spectrum of video retailers (both 

independents and large chains), as well as the home video divisions of all major and 

independent motion picture studios, video game and multimedia producers, and 

72

other related businesses that constitute and support the home video entertainment 

industry. 

Video game sales and rentals are an important and increasing segment of the 

home video industry. In 1998, the domestic home video game market generated 

about $2.7 billion in software sales and about $800 million in rental revenue. 

The members of VSDA agree with the premise that the best control is parental 

control. As stated in the final report of the Congressional Bipartisan Working Group 

on Youth Violence, which was issued two weeks ago, ‘‘[p]arents and other adults responsible for the development of children should be vigilant about protecting them 

from exposure to inappropriate programming.’’ There is no better place than in a 

home video store for parents to control the content of the video games and movies 

to which their children have access. For this reason, VSDA-member retailers have 

taken action to aid parents in making more-informed entertainment choices for their 

families. We do this through a program we call ‘‘Pledge to Parents.’’ The centerpiece of Pledge to Parents, established by VSDA in 1991, is a commitment by participating retailers:

1. Not to rent or sell videotapes or video games designated as ‘‘restricted’’ to 

persons under 17 without parental consent, including all movies rated ‘‘R’’ by 

the Motion Picture Association of America and all video games rated ‘‘M’’ by the 

Entertainment Software Rating Board. 

2. Not to rent or sell videotapes rated ‘‘NC–17’’ by the Motion Picture Association of America or video games rated ‘‘Adults Only’’ by the Entertainment Software Rating Board to persons aged 17 or under.

In addition, as part of the Pledge to Parents program, many retailers solicit from 

customers written instructions regarding what types of video games and movies can 

be rented or purchased by family members. For instance, a customer can limit all 

of his or her children, regardless of age, to videos rated ‘‘E’’ (Everyone: content suitable for age six and older) by the Entertainment Software Rating Board, or indicate 

that one child is permitted to rent ‘‘E’’ games while another can rent ‘‘T’’ (Teen: content suitable for age 13 and older). Thus, our voluntary system allows parents, if 

they so choose, to be even more restrictive than any industry- or government-enforced system would be. 

In 1999, we updated our Pledge to Parents materials and provided the revised kit, 

at no cost, to each retail member of VSDA. We have also offered to provide the materials at cost to any other video retailer that requests them. 

Each Pledge to Parents kit contains the following:

• Customer Flyer and Parental Consent Form—These materials provide information about the Pledge to Parents program and allow customers to indicate 

their restrictions or authorizations on video and video game rentals and sales 

by their family members. 

• Terminal-Topper Sign—This sign, to be displayed near the cash register, 

draws customers’ attention to Pledge to Parents and the retailer’s ratings enforcement policy. 

• ID Check Sign—We encourage retailers to post this sign, which indicates that 

IDs will be checked when appropriate, throughout their store and remind customers of the retailer’s voluntary ratings enforcement policy. 

• Video Game Ratings Poster and Brochures—The poster and brochures are designed to help customers make informed decisions concerning their children’s 

video game rentals. 

• MPAA Theatrical-Size Ratings Poster—This poster provides customers with 

movie ratings information to further assist them with their selection of movies.

We have encouraged our members to make maximum use of the Pledge to Parents 

materials and provide ratings and content information to customers of all ages. We 

also have strongly urged our members to check IDs whenever appropriate. We are 

pleased to report that the response to this program from our members has been extremely positive. 

As part of the relaunch of Pledge to Parents, we conducted a substantial public 

outreach campaign that reached millions of consumers through television, radio, 

newspapers, and the Internet. The purpose of this campaign was to make parents 

aware of the resources available to them in video stores. 

And we think parents are taking this message to heart. By and large, parents appear to be making good choices for their children’s game playing and movie viewing. 

According to VSDA’s VidTrac for the week ending March 12, 2000, all of the 10 top 

renting video games, and 21 of the top 25, were rated ‘‘E’’ or ‘‘T.’’

The voluntary Pledge to Parents program demonstrates our industry’s commitment to the communities in which we live. Video stores and their employees are 

73

part of the neighborhoods where they are located. They often know their customers 

by name. They know what is acceptable and what is not acceptable in their communities. They take pride in the entertainment they bring into people’s homes. And 

they realize that their reputations and livelihoods are on the line every time they 

sell or rent a video game or movie. Video retailers would not put their businesses 

at risk by providing to children games that their parents don’t want them to have. 

Finally, we must keep in mind that, in addressing the issue of violence in American society, the government cannot infringe the constitutional rights of video retailers and consumers—or of parents to raise their families as they see fit. Ultimately 

the responsibility for raising children lies with their parents, not the government 

and certainly not video store clerks. 

Recognizing this, the Bipartisan Working Group on Youth Violence recommended 

that members of Congress meet with the entertainment industry to learn more 

about entertainment ratings systems and how to communicate information about 

the ratings systems to parents. We would be pleased to work with you to implement 

this recommendation. 

The nation’s video stores are doing their part to make sure that America’s children are not exposed to violent video games without their parents’ consent. Home 

video provides parents with the greatest control of their children’s electronic game 

playing. Voluntary programs, such as VSDA’s Pledge to Parents, are the best way 

to help parents exercise that control. 

Thank you.

Æ