Save the Ignorant!--Why VideoGames are Wrongly Blamed for Violence and Crime

Although an ignorant and gullible audience might think otherwise, it is obviously sheer stupidity to claim that media, especially videogames, can be one of the lead causes and main influences of aggressive behavior, juvenile crimes, and violent acts such as murder. To claim that media controls the mind of the human being can be compared to that of a psycho conspiracy theory that tells us we have no control over our own minds. Through looking at experiments and research given by some of the world’s top researchers who research influences of killing, we will find that all of these experiments are lacking variables and information vital to proving the case they claim are videogames’ fault. Furthermore, when looking at the different experiments showing how videogames are a good outlet, we see detailed and informative reports giving us confidence in the overall results.

When we look at the different arguments claiming that videogames cause aggression and violence, we find a lot of loose ends that need explaining. The first argument I would like to bring to attention is found in the book Grand Theft Childhood, a study by Lawrence Kutner and Cheryl K. Olsen, tells us that 60% of middle school boys who played at least one Mature-rated game hit or beat up someone, compared to 39% of boys that did not play Mature-rated games. The study claims to be legitimate, although when we read further we see that this argument is a word/number game. It is an illusion. For instance, one must remember that this isn’t talking about ALL school boys as the study might appear to be saying, but the study is ONLY talking about the school boys who had hit somebody. In better terms, 39% of boys had also beaten somebody up; they just had not played M-rated videogames prior to do so. Also, remember that 60+39 does not equal 100. The 39 instead of a 40 gives us the illusion that the number of boys who hadn’t played M-rated videogames was nearer to 30% rather than 40%, making it look like there were nearly double the amount of boys who had played M-rated games and hit someone. Even with both of these arguments, the experiment stands corrected in the end by a sense of logic and common sense. Violent videogames (or M-rated) are only ONE variable in the equation. What if I made the statement, “80% of boys who had ever hit someone ate an apple for breakfast as opposed to the other 19% who didn’t.”? You would immediately think that the statement had nothing to do with violence in middle school boys. But, what if this statement was true and we could prove this statistic correct? The common person would think this idea was preposterous! Nevertheless, we cannot give the experiment on M-rated games credit for such a preposterous claim.

According to the study by Tracey L. Dietz titled An Examination of Violence and Gender Role Portrayals in Video Games: Implications for Gender Socialization and Aggressive Behavior, violent acts in a videogame often reward players and stimulate aggressive behavior. Upon reading this study, I fail to see how this argument can stand, especially considering what her database was based on. Upon reading the study, I found the ultimate goal of the study is to prove that female roles are incorrectly portrayed in popular videogames and this all being in the year of 1995 with hockey videogames, fairytale videogames, and “Super Mario” videogames, a few examples of games just about as threatening as a 20-year-old adult reading a Dr. Seuss book. Oh, and Tetris, the game that deals with using building blocks to solve puzzles is also argued as violent and unfair to the female role in videogames…There are two things here that I feel should be touched on. Number one, the numbers and stats this experiment provides are completely flawed with too few samples in the database and too many opinions based on fluffy, illegitimate numbers. Number two, even if this statement of aggression from videogames was to be correct, than I have my own question: If volleyball causes aggressive behavior in women, should we remove volleyball from the lives of females? Will they, too begin killing without stopping?

The major era in which videogames took flight in society began in about 1995 and has continued to grow more and more each year thereafter. A simple look at the rate of juvenile crimes may not be able to tell us if videogames are the cause of those crimes, but they can surely tell us if they are not the cause if they are decreasing when videogames have hit their peak in sales. "Crime in the United States, 2008," an article found on the FBI’s website, tells us that the rate for arrests in juvenile murders fell 71.9% and juvenile crimes by 49.3% between the years of 1995 and 2008. Either less people are getting arrested because our criminals are more intelligent than our police, criminals fear our police forces so much that they have decided to quit crime, or videogames COULD possibly be a reason for reducing crimes. However, there are many factors we would need to look at when analyzing whether or not videogames are the cause for the decline, so a statement like this would be just as illegitimate as the other two arguments already discussed. If we decide to blame videogames for our crimes, why, when videogames are reaching a new peak in popularity each year, would the arrest rate for anything go down when the media’s industry is so national, much more global? In this same time period, videogame sales have more than quadrupled. Should not the world be in an utter state of terror?

“The Final Report and Findings of the Safe School Initiative,” a study by the US Secret Service gives us details on what might be going on through an active shooter’s mind and how we might be more prepared and protected in our schools. This article is provided in full detail and is open to the public, a perfect way for just about anyone to get their hands on a complete study and develop a good, valid argument and opinion. The article states (not argues) that one-eighth of attackers found throughout history (as long as videogames have been in the market) exhibited an interest in violent videogames, much less than the rate of interest attackers showed in violent movies, books, and violence in their own writings. The report, even more so interesting, found absolutely no relationship between playing videogames and school shootings. The US Secret Service may not have the upper hand on that kind of study as some might be quick to claim. I would comply only on the basis that there are researchers who dedicate their life to this subject. Therefore, I have decided to look into the mind of the world-renown researchers that dedicate their life to solving these predicaments. However, the statistics that tell us one-eighth of attackers exhibited less an interest in violent videogames than in other influences are complete statistics with a large sample. I wouldn’t argue with them on reliability.

Numbers that are taken by census and the government are close to exact since they are apart a bigger sample. The 1 million sample used by the government as opposed to the one hundred sample used in the opposing studies show us the difference between theory and fact. Therefore, we can trust percentages that have a higher value such as the percentages provided by the secret service. If videogames are supposedly causing an outbreak in violence among teens and have the influence analysts are claiming that they have, than why on Earth would the percentages of crime and juvenile crime go down when videogames come to a new peak in sales every single day?

Craig A. Anderson, Ph.D., author of the article “Violent Video Games: Myths, Facts, and Unanswered Questions”written under the authority of the American Psychological Association (October 2003), is a distinguished professor and director at the Center for the Study of Violence, a research center within the Institute for Social and Behavioral Research at Iowa State University. His article was considered top in reliability by Google’s rating system that I have installed on my web browser. As I looked into his article, I began to note quite a few flukes throughout, leading me to note how unreliable our “top” videogame critics and analysts really are. According to Anderson, studies show college students revealing aggression after playing “E-rated (suitable for EVERYONE) violent video games.” This point is clearly not backed up whatsoever, and that is not, by any means, my opinion. His article is separated into myths about videogames and each myth has an explanation. This fact, however, is not legit to answer the myth he lists. There was, upon reading on his website, no direct reference to any experiment he claims there to have been. Looking throughout the article and its many references, I noticed that almost all his references were by studies that he did himself, giving me no information whatsoever. His biased views are evident in the way that he studies. He is not studying the effects of videogames unbiased; he is studying to prove videogames are made to make killers. When I decided to look up his studies on the web to check them with the information he presented, I found absolutely nothing I was looking for. All of the studies I needed (the studies with ACTUAL valid points) all seemed to be out of reach, not open to the public. If our top analyst argues videogames are a cause of violence and he cannot provide information to the public to know for themselves whether or not what he is saying is ture, how can he be considered reliable or even our top analyst?

When videogames first became popular, Nintendo 64 and Playstation were at the top of their game. They sold videogames to everyone I knew when I was a kid. There was not one person in my neighborhood that did not have either a Nintendo or Playstation. Around 1997-2000, the big games really started to come out, and people really started to buy gaming systems more and more. Games with cartoon violence stepped into the picture, like Super Smash Brothers and updated versions of Mario. First person shooter games, the arguably most violent form of videogames, did not start to appear until the end of that era of gaming and into the Microsoft Xbox, PS2, and GameCube era. At this point, videogame systems seemed to be just as important in the common household as a television. When these game systems came out, the new thing that everyone wanted was a violent, First Person Shooter game. The FPS games really took to the videogame audience when games like “Halo,” “Halo2,” and “Call of Duty” came out. Soon, all videogame companies wanted to do was to compete in the area of FPS. With the technology movement there must come updates in technology overall. Three more consoles came out: Xbox360, PS3, and the Nintendo Wii. Videogames took a wide turn of events. The Wii was developed for different reasons; it had a goal of reaching a bigger audience outside of the area of FPS although it still had FPS games. The Xbox360 and PS3, however, did not take that same turn.

With all of this information, what could we possibly derive from it that brings us to a conclusion of rather or not videogames are the leading influence in violent and juvenile crimes in America today? Although we do see an upward trend of FPS games (the most common violent videogame around today), do we also see an upward trend in juvenile crime? When looking at the FBI’s records of juvenile crime trends, the argument is simple and in numbers; videogames cannot be causing the amount of violent influence that analysts like Dr. Craig insure since the videogame era happens to have taken off between the dates of 1995-2008, the same dates provided in which the percentage (ratio with high sample) of violent crimes decreased tremendously, not to mention juvenile crimes.

When looking at the different analyzing of the so-called “top analysts” of our time, it is important to look at their overall credentials, experimental study details, and information as a whole. When statements like “studies show” or “blahblah% of” are shown in any article, the reader should dig in and not take everything as it comes from the reading as legitimate. The argument of videogames being the cause of or lack of violence in America is sketchy and, in opinion, an ultimate waste of time as the human mind is individual and not controlled by one particular influence over another but a list of influences beyond that of one. Home life, parenting, school life, television, religion, and even more influences have an effect on the human and the morals and values for that particular mind.

I feel a burden for the ill-informed and ignorant audience that chooses to believe whatever they hear. I feel annoyed by the high paid “top analysts” of our era spending so much time on things that depend on the individual. Ever human being reacts different to different things. That gives us individuality and a soul. Sociologists, Psychologists, and other “grouping of humanity” scientists sometimes forget the number one rule in their field: There are exceptions to everything. The reason this rule is in place is because of individuality, which will never go away. Furthermore, the last thing we should be focusing on as an intelligent people is the argument that one variable is the one cause of one behavior.

Bibliography (in order of discussion)

1. Lawrence Kutner and Cheryl K. Olsen, Grand Theft Childhood: The Surprising Truth about Violent Video Games and What Parents Can Do, Apr. 2008. Web. 26 Apr. 2010.

2. Tracy L. Dietz, “An Examination of Violence and Gender Role Portrayals in Video Games: Implications for Gender Socialization and Aggressive Behavior.” Sex Roles. 38. (1998): 5-6. Web. 26 Apr. 2010.

3. "Essential Facts about the Computer and Video Game Industry," Entertainment Software Association website, May 2009. Web. 26 Apr. 2010.

4. Bryan Vossekull, Director. “The Final Report and Findings of the Safe School Initiative.” Washington DC Secret Service. June 2004. Web. 26 Apr. 2010.

5. Craig A. Anderson, PhD. “Violent Video Games: Myths, Facts, and Unanswered Questions.” American Psychological Association (October 2003). Web. 26 Apr. 2010.