Violent Video Games and Girls

Whilst taking the time to write about how violent video games affect people, I got to thinking, these are all stories about boys. I wanted to know if the same situations affected girls in the same way, and if they did, compare the experiences. For one, I found it much more difficult to find scholarly articles to support my queries (it was just as hard to find regular articles too.) I did, however, stumble upon a few articles where the affect on girls was looked at. The first one comes from a paper from Georgia Tech where the idea of whether violent video games should be banned. The writer quotes a study done on the topic.

The Polman study found that an aggression level change due to violent video game play occurred specifically for boys; aggression in girls was not affected by game condition (Polman, de Castro, & van Aken, 2008).

This both surprised me and got my wheels turning. It's easy to understand why a boy would be affected more by violent exposure. Men are naturally tougher, while women are nurturing. I suppose I just didn't expect to see that the results would be so different between the two genders. This begs the question then, if we do ban violent video games, is that really fair? Yes, an increase in aggression has been seen in males, but what about the females who enjoy the games? They would no longer be able to have access to them because it would be a liability. The writer of that article goes on to say that this study shows exactly why we can't ban violent video games and also exactly why it is the parents job to regulate time spent playing violent video games.

After doing some more searching, it was very hard for me to find information that compares aggressive behavior in boys against the change in aggression for girls. They always say that violent video games have such a negative affect; I'd like to see how this "negative affect" differs in boys and girls. It'd be interesting to see if the biological differences between the two sexes contribute to how aggressive they are after playing a violent game. It seems to me that all the research is focused on how violent video games affect children. I want to see a study that takes into account the fundamental differences between the sexes.

If anyone's interested in the article I pulled the quote from, here it is.
Should Violent Video Games Be Banned?

Too Young To Kill?

I remembered watching a program on tv last year that was titled "Too Young To Kill," a show about murders where the suspects were people under the age of eighteen. Number five on the list was a young boy by the name of Daniel Petric who took part in what would be called the "Halo Shootings."

Petric 

When the game Halo 3 came out in September of 2007, Petric was forbidden to make purchase of the game by his parents. He snuck out, purchased the game, and upon reentering the house that night, was caught by his parents who in turn took the game away. The game, according to an article, was placed in a lock box where there was also a 9mm handgun. According to the article, a month later, the young man gained access to the lock box and the handgun. He then proceeded to use the gun and shoot his mother, killing her, and his father, severely wounding him. He took the copy of Halo 3 and fled. From that point on, his case became known as the Halo Shootings.

Upon reaching trial, the defense attorney tried to attribute the shootings to the Halo addiction that the young man had. The judge decided that that was not a reasonable excuse or explanation for the shootings. I must say that I agree.

Here is the clip from the episode where his story was featured.

There was obviously much more going on in the child's head that lead him to go so far as to commit the shootings, Halo couldn't have been completely to blame. I was feeling extremely biased about this issue so I decided to take to the highly credible community of YouTube watchers to look at the comments. :) Immediately, it is obvious what the consensus is, most people found it absurd that they were trying to blame the youth's addiction to games on the shooting. It seems so sensational and an excuse for outside influences that may contribute. 

One part of the trial that I found interesting was a comment stated by the defense attorney where he said that the copious amounts of gameplay made Petric unable to understand the finality of death. In the game, when your character dies, all you have to do is hit restart, problem solved. The attorney said this mindset played into account when Daniel shot his parents. He just didn't understand that shooting his parents would be permanent. According to the prosecution, Daniel didn't feel any remorse or ill feelings for what he had done. According to the aforementioned article, Petric even tried to make the shootings look like a suicide by placing the 9mm gun in the hand of his wounded father. 

Petric was eventually sentenced to 23 years in prison with the possibility of parole in 2030. After seeing a case like this, it really makes you think about how large of an impact these violent games really have. Was he really so addicted that having it taken away after only playing it for a short time really enough to set him off? I'd like to think that there is no way that's possible, but there's no telling. Is this shooting a result of the violence he learned in the game? Or is it an amalgamation of bad living situations and an already hampered mental state? That seems more reasonable to me, it's just interesting to see the video games catch the fall as usual. 

Columbine Video Game Connection

As we all know, the shootings that occurred on Tuesday, April 22, 1999 at Columbine High School were a tragedy that should have been avoided. After the shooting, there was talk all around about why the event happened and what was going on in the shooters minds. Maybe I have such strong feelings towards the argument that violent video games contributed to the shootings because I play games myself and can't see how they could affect me in that way. It just gets to me when people try to justify socially unacceptable behavior as a result of violence in video games. Yes, maybe the shooters had seen something in a video game that had given them the idea to act it out in real life, but video games are not solely to blame. From an article posted on the New York Times' website (link here), a study found that the shootings were a possible result from the boys getting their video game privileges revoked. A quote was taken from a psychiatrist by the name of Jerald Block stating,

They “relied on the virtual world of computer games to express their rage and to spend time, and cutting them off in 1998 sent them into crisis,”

Personally, I play more than my fair share of video games and in the past, yes, my parents have taken them away but never have I felt "rage" or any other angry emotion. Now, I realize that there was a lot going on in the minds of the shooters that went much much deeper than having their games taken away, but it always seems that violent video games get the fall. It almost seems like a cop out to me, I feel as though if violent video games really were to blame, then the government would be doing more to stop them (and not have a 7-2 vote to allow the sale of these games to minors).

One part of the article that I found especially interesting, and one that I haven't yet heard about, is that recently, the American Medical Association was seriously considering adding video game addiction to its list of mental illnesses. Maybe playing an overly abundant amount of video games is bad, but a mental illness? Here's a link to a Wikipedia page where they delve a little deeper into the idea of violent video games promoting anti social characteristics. I especially like this article because it brings up the positive aspects of these games, and doesn't harp solely on the bad ones. One part of the article, as it pertains to the shootings, goes on to present the idea that the two teens had become desensitized in their video game worlds and projected it into their everyday lives. If this were true, we would need to ban every Saw movie ever made. There are far worse things that we see in movies and television that could also lead to desensitization when it comes to violence.

So, maybe the violent video games did play a large role in the mental breakdown of the two teens, but I don't know if there is enough information to prove that they are to blame. Just because we physically interact with the violence in a game and merely watch it in the movies doesn't make a game any worse.

Brown vs. EMA Reaction

Here is a video of the reaction to the ruling in the Brown vs. EMA case. One of my personal favorite moments comes at about 4 minutes in when a woman by the name of Elizabeth Soloman comes on to talk about the issue. I found her point interesting, yes, it is our job to protect children from these things that they shouldn't be exposed to, but I can't pull myself away from the idea that it is the job of the parent to monitor the child's gaming habits. Yes, it's almost impossible for a parent to be able to monitor every single thing that their child is doing, but the game store/developers shouldn't be at blame. Later, she kind of goes on to state that playing these games is akin to the child having access to an illicit substance. I think that that argument is a bit of a stretch, but I can see where she's coming from. 

I'd like to also add in that this video is a little sensational, they chose to pick clips from games that were a tad biased. Yes, those games have violent moments, but the way this video portrays them makes them look like they are constantly like this. So, to anyone who doesn't make a habit of playing too many games, don't walk away thinking they're all like this all the time. These games are pieces of art with stories and characters, not just mindless violence. Leave it to Fox news to bring us unbiased and fair journalism. 

Brown vs. EMA

Something that I have always found to be interesting is the debate on whether or not violent video games will affect a persons behavior. From my personal experience, I would like to say the answer to this riddle is no, but there are plenty of people who think otherwise, such as the Governor of the state of California. A couple of weeks ago, the state took a case to the Supreme Court in order to make it illegal to sell violent video games to minors. At first glance, this looks like a fantastic idea. There's no way that anyone would sanely want their children playing graphic games, but upon further inspection, it's clear to me why this law can't be passed. The definition of violence in video games alone would be enough to knock out almost 75% of the selection of current games. If an employer were to be found guilty for selling a violent game to a minor, they would likely be punished with a fine and receive a stern talking to. By passing this law, the gaming industry would be alienated. There is no doubt in my mind that the things that children see in movies and hear in some songs are just as bad, if not worse than the things we see in the games. If movies, books, and music are all protected under the first amendment, then games should be included too. Now, I understand that as adults, it is our responsibility to make sure that children aren't exposed to these types of things, but I feel it is the parents job to protect them, not the clerk at the game store. 

Here's a link to the court report for the 7-2 decision to not make it illegal to sell violent games to minors. Court Document

For a more layman friendly version, here's a link to the news story written by my most trusted video game news site. Friendly Version

If there were to be a law such as this to pass, it would make it a necessity to make bans like this in other media forms, like movies. Though it may not seem like it, video games are an art form and passing this law would stifle the developers work. I must say that I am shocked to see that the court ruled this way. Video games have been looked down upon for so long for their violent scenes that when I first heard about it, I was sure the state would win. One aside I will throw in is that currently, the ESRB is in charge of making the ratings for the games. A violent video game is typically rated as M, for mature, and sometimes T, for teen. At my store, we stand behind the ESRB ratings and will not allow a child to purchase an M rated game without the parents consent and approval. It isn't a law, we as a company just feel it is the right thing to do. So, had the law passed, it probably wouldn't have changed much on my end (the seller), rather, it would have limited the options for what a developer puts in their game. Personally, I am glad that the law failed to pass the Supreme Court, parents just need to step up and take a more proactive role in the lives of their children.