Koganti 1 Roy Koganti Instructor Kurt Sampsel English 76-101: Interpretation and Argument 4 May 2012 The Myths

Surrounding Video Games The video game industry has been expanding in the past two decades and accordingly, it has had a more widespread effect on people. Nowadays, video games are so much more complex than a movie or TV show, in that they have a lot more to offer us in terms of content. As a result, more and more people are attracted to video games. But the increased popularity of video games comes with a price - video games have come under intense scrutiny in recent times as to whether they inhibit a persons, especially a teenagers, psychological and mental growth and behavior. It is undeniable that video games have both tangible and intangible effects on people. However, many of these effects are misconstrued as real when they in fact arent. A large gap exists between the publics perception of the effects of video games and what the research actually shows. The way video games are depicted in the media and publicized has led to many negative impressions surrounding video games, causing many of the naysayers to believe that video games have various damaging ramifications towards society. Every issue has some black spots but in many instances, video games are erroneously associated with certain adverse effects that they in fact do not perpetuate. For example, people mistakenly believe that the increased availability of video games has led to a prevalent culture of youth violence and that there is scientific evidence of a causation link between violent video games and aggressive behavior. They also believe that since games are being used to train soldiers to kill, they have the same impact on the kids who play them. Video games are also thought to turn teenagers into anti-

Koganti 2 social loners and desensitize them. The verity of these accusations has been the cause of much controversy. My aim is debunking these myths and controversies surrounding video games and proving that they do not always have the detrimental effects sometimes associated with them. Firstly, it is true that the video games industry has been prospering since the 21st century but it has not led to an epidemic of youth violence, contrary to popular belief. According to arrest statistics from the FBI Uniform Crime Reports, the rate of juvenile violent crime in the United States was at a 30-year low in 2009 and decreased 23.5% between 2000 and 2010 [FBI, 1]. What this data alone tells us is that there is no epidemic of youth violence; there is no correlation between the availability of video games, violent ones in particular, and youth violence. In fact, as the video game industry started expanding with a multitude of new consoles and games on the horizon, the opposite happened to the rate of youth violence over the past decade. However, it does not distinguish explicitly how or even whether video games and violence are connected. Professor Henry Jenkins, the director of comparative studies at MIT, discusses this relation in a report by first noting that although young offenders who have committed school shootings in America have also been game players, young people in general are more likely to be gamers. The overwhelming majority of kids who play do not commit antisocial acts, [Jenkins, 1]. He brings up the 2001 U.S. Surgeon General's report, a comprehensive report about youth violence, which reviews data from hundreds of studies. One of the general findings was that the strongest risk factors for youth violence are mental stability and the quality of home life, not media exposure, [Surgeon General, Chapter 4]. This is where the report draws a distinction between violence and aggression, where violence is treated as extreme physical transgressions, whereas aggression simply relates to emotional responses such as anger. The number of studies investigating the impact of violent video games on youth violence is small so their impact on violent behavior

Koganti 3 remains to be determined but the report states that media violence has a very large effect on aggression but only a small effect on violence, [Surgeon General, Chapter 4]. Even if the relation between violent video games and youth violence is blurry, Professor Jenkins asserts that the numerous studies done on other forms of media violence can be used to postulate that video game violence has a similar lack of effect regarding youth violence [Jenkins, 1]. Nonetheless, the effect of media violence on violent behavior would be more pronounced depending on the personal traits and social environment of the viewer [Surgeon General, Chapter 4]. Thus, it would also be possible for violent video games to incite violent behavior in a gamer, but it would depend more on other, stronger risk factors. However, the exact relation between video games and youth violence still cant be truly determined; Professor Jenkins simply states a hypothesis, albeit one that is grounded in related evidence, but without more extensive studies examining the relation, we cannot explicitly state what sort of connection the two share. Still, there is one truth there has been no epidemic of youth violence, even with the widespread popularity of video games. Just as in the case of violent behavior, there is no scientific evidence to suggest that violent video games are the primary factors behind increased aggression in teenagers but violent video games do have an affinity with aggressive behavior. The intense media focus on video games has a large part to play in this misconstrued notion that video games lead to increased aggression in gamers. After seeing so many highlights linking violent video games and aggressive behavior in official news channels, viewers rationalize to themselves that the former leads to the latter and that its a proven fact. Professor Jenkins notes that claims about violent video games leading to increased aggressive behavior are based on the work of researchers of some 300 studies of media violence. However, most of those studies are inconclusive and many

Koganti 4 have been criticized on methodological grounds. Subjects are asked to engage with content that they would not normally consume and may not understand and the laboratory context is radically different from the environments where games would normally be played, [Jenkins, 1]. Thus, the accuracy of the results is debatable. In addition, he brings up the fact that most studies found a correlation, not a causal relationship, which means the research could simply show that aggressive people like aggressive entertainment [Jenkins, 1]. The only real conclusion coming from all this research is that violent video games may be one player when coupled with other more immediate, real-world influences that can contribute to aggressive behavior [Jenkins, 1]. The report by the Office of the Surgeon General also states an important general finding from the various experimental studies that is in agreement with Professor Jenkins findings. Not all youths seem to be affected equally by media violence. The effects seem to be strongest on youths who are predisposed to be aggressive for some reason or have been aroused or provoked [Surgeon General, Chapter 4]. In addition, another study by Christopher J. Ferguson, Assistant Professor at Texas A&M International University whose research focuses on violent behavior and is currently analyzing violent video games, and his colleagues also found that family violence and innate aggression were better predictors of aggressive behavior than was exposure to video game violence, [Fergusion Et Al. 2]. Thus, the results suggest that there is a correlation between violent video games and aggressive behavior and this relationship could be a causation one. However, third variables, such as innate aggression and gender, may strengthen or weaken this relationship. Thus, there is no conclusive evidence showing that violent video games are the primary cause behind increased aggression in teens but they may be a be a contributing factor when combined with other more prevalent factors.

Koganti 5 Although video games are used to train soldiers to kill, they do not have the same impact on the kids who play them. The idea of video games being used as training for violent acts is actually viable, as in the case of the U.S. military where soldiers learn battle tactics and how to kill from video games. Former military psychologist and moral reformer Col. Dave Grossman argues in his book, Stop Teaching Our Kids To Kill, that because the military uses games in training, the generation of young people who play such games are similarly being brutalized and conditioned to be aggressive in their everyday social interactions [Grossman, 10]. They are unknowingly learning how to handle a gun, how to use it, and to respond to situations in the same way soldiers would, usually with violence. However, Professor Jenkins also discusses Grossmans book and he raises several oppositions to Grossmans claims. The military uses games as part of a specific curriculum, with clearly defined goals. Soldiers are expected to hone their battle tactics and shooting skills; it is an environment where students actively want to learn and have a need for the information being transmitted, [Jenkins, 1]. If soldiers dont master those skills, they wont be as effective on the battlefield, leading to disastrous consequences. They played the game with the intent of learning how to kill, so they learnt it. That is a fundamental difference between them and the average gamers. Grossman's model only works under assuming that learners have no conscious goals and that they show no resistance to what they are being taught and that they unwittingly apply what they learn in a fantasy environment to real world spaces, Jenkins, 1]. However, that is not the case for most gamers. Clive Thompson, a journalist on The New York Times, wrote a piece about an experiment, involving whether games can teach you to kill, with Grossman, in which he asserts that most critics assume that players are hopeless dupes of the videogame experiencethat they are unable to critically assess what they play and are doomed only to be influenced by it [Thompson, 1]. Even Cowlishaw

Koganti 6 assumes as such when he writes about how the U.S. army uses the video game, Americas Army, to train real American soldiers in battle tactics and killing, and also to entice potential recruits. The army counts on young men to download the game, enjoy it, think to themselves, Hey, you know, I should do this for real, and then go enlist, [Cowlishaw, 6]. In other words, the game makes players want to learn and do the acts in the game, which includes killing. Cowlishaw notes that the video game is the most effective recruitment tool since the Uncle Sam I Want You posters, [Cowlishaw, 6] as gamers believe that their virtual prowess and enjoyment translate directly into real-world Army suitability and success, [Cowlishaw, 7]. However, these recruits dont represent people who could not separate the virtual from reality; they represent the new breed of gamers. In his new book, What Video Games Have to Teach Us About Learning and Literacy, James Gee, Professor at Arizona State University, describes modern gamers as active and aware problem solvers who have to learn and decode a new literacy with every new game, a literacy that is based on the content of the game itself [Gee, 17]. According to Professor Gee, different people decode that literacy differently. The recruits represent those people who decode and came to understand the learning principles of the game, and liked it. Professor Gees research delves into a fundamentally different model of how and what players learn from games, depending on their mindset [Gee, 17].

Video games are thought to be socially isolating but video games actually help people engage with friends and playing video games has become an increasingly social experience. According to the Pew Internet study of US teenagers by Amanda Lenhart, senior research specialist at the Pew Internet & American Life Project,and various other authors, 97% of teenagers aged 12-17 play video games of some sort [Lenhart et al. 2]. It has become an almost

Koganti 7 universal pastime among young Americans, leading to more ways for people to relate to others. For most teens, gaming is a social activity and a major component of their overall social experience [Lenhart et al. 4]. According to Lenhart, three quarters of teens actually play video games with other people, whether online or in person [Lenhart et al. 5] and more than half of those who play online games play with people they know in their offline lives. In addition, even playing games every day does not appear to impact teenagers' social lives as, according to the study, people who game on a daily basis are just as likely to talk on the phone, to email, to spend time with a friend face to face outside of school as kids who play games less, [Lenhart, et al 7]. It is a fact that there is still anti-social behavior observed in some gamers; there are still teens that only play games alone. Still, if playing video games was the sole reason for such behavior, the majority of gamers would be loners but data from the study suggests that is not the case. For the majority of gamers, playing video games is a social pastime for them, similar to playing basketball and just hanging out at the park. However, this does not mean there is no link between video games and anti-social behavior. According to a report by Clay Routledge, an assistant professor of Psychology at North Dakota State University, it really depends on the game. Even he admits that there are numerous studies that suggest that a steady diet of violent games (and violent media in general) can lead to antisocial behavior [Routledge, 1]. However, he also goes on to say that these studies mistakenly contribute to a general sense that most or all video games are bad for us socially [Routledge, 1]. If playing antisocial games can lead to antisocial behavior, playing pro-social games could also lead to pro-social behavior [Routledge, 1]. He brings up research to augment his point, in the form of experiments published in the Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, by Tobias Greitemeyer from the University of Sussex and Slivia Osswald from Ludwig-Maximilians-University. Data from the experiments

Koganti 8 showed that participants who had just played a pro-social game, like were twice as likely to engage in helpful behaviors compared to those who had played neutral games, like Tetris. Such research challenges the claim that video games are inherently antisocial by demonstrating that it really depends on the game [Routledge, 1]. Routledge also highlights the fact that only 4 out of the top 25 best-selling video games are explicitly violent, with the rest being comprised of sports, racing simulation and cartoonish games. The five most popular games, according to the study, were Guitar Hero, Halo 3, Madden NFL, Solitaire, and Dance Dance Revolution. Only one out of those five, Halo 3, is explicitly violent. Teenagers are not simply playing violent first-person shooters or action games [Lenhart et al. 4]. They are playing a variety of genres. In other words, any notion that kids are being fed a steady diet of violent games is unsubstantiated [Routledge, 1]. Furthermore, games today are becoming increasing more complex. Games combine both antisocial and pro-social elements now, where an increasing number of games with violent content focus on adding moral dilemmas and social consequences, [Routledge, 1]. Thus, far from turning teenagers into anti-social loners, video games help them engage with friends and community. One thing that has been made clear is that there is still much research that needs to be done in order to clarify the effect of video games on the psyche of gamers. Video games have no clear relation with either violent behavior or increased aggression. There is no research to prove whether there is a correlation or causation relationship at work; however, there are studies showing that there are other more prevalent factors than violent video games in being precursors. Thus, violent video games could incite violent or aggressive behavior in a gamer, but it would depend on more dominant risk factors. In addition, video games inevitably teach gamers but what they learn depends on their own mindset going into the game. Just because certain games

Koganti 9 teach soldiers how to kill does not mean it would teach the ordinary gamer the same thing he does not play the game wanting to learn how to kill a real person. As such, he interprets things in the game differently and consequently learns different things. Finally, video games are becoming more and more social. People playing games engage with each other more than ever before but, like all social influences, video games can be neutral, good, bad, and often a mix of all of the above. Still, if there is one truth about video games, it is that nearly all teenagers play video games of some sort. If one of them commits a crime of some sort, it would be foolhardy to simply pin it on video games when the odds of them playing video games of some sort are pretty much one out of one.

Koganti 10 Works Cited Cowlishaw, Brian. Playing War: The Emerging Trend of Real Virtual Combat in Current Video Games. Emerging Popular Culture Corner Archive. 2005. Americana: The Institute for the Study of American Popular Culture. 10 Aug. 2009 <http://www.americanpopularculture. com/archive/emerging/real_virtual_combat.htm>. Federal Bureau of Investigations. Uniform Crime Reports, Ten-Year Arrest Trends Uniform Crime Reports. Federal Bureau of Investigations. 3 May 2012. <http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/crime-in-the-u.s/2010/crime-in-the-u.s.2010/tables/10tbl32.xls> Ferguson, Christophor J. et al. Violent Video Games and Aggresion Criminal Justice and Behavior Vol 35. March 2008. Pg 311-332 Gee, James Paul. What Video Games Have To Teach Us About Learning And Literacy. New York: Palgrave Macmillan,2007 Grossman, Dave. Stop Teaching Our Kids How To Kill. New York: Crown Publishers, 1999 Jenkins, Henry. Reality Bytes: Eight Myths About Video Games Debunked PBS.org. Public Broadcasting Service. 23 Apr 2012. <http://www.pbs.org/kcts/videogamerevolution/impact/myths.html> Lenhart, Amanda et al. Teens, Video Games and Civics Pew Internet & American Life Project. Sep 16 2008. Pew Research Center. May 2 2012. <http://www.pewinternet.org/Reports/2008/Teens-Video-Games-and-Civics/01-

Koganti 11 Summary-of-Findings.aspx> Office of the Surgeon General. Youth Violence, A Report of The Surgeon General. Rockville (MD): Office of the Surgeon General, 2001 Routledge, Clay. The Social Benefits Of Video Gaming Death Love Sex Magic. June 7 2010. Psychology Today. 3 May 2012. <http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/death-love-sex-magic/201006/the-socialbenefits-video-gaming> Thompson, Clive. Can video-games train you to kill? I found out Collision detection. Oct 16 2002. 3 May 2012. <http://www.collisiondetection.net/mt/archives/2002/10/can_videogames.php>