video games are too violent essay

October 2, 2018

Do Violent Video Games Trigger Aggression?

A study tries to find whether slaughtering zombies with a virtual assault weapon translates into misbehavior when a teenager returns to reality

By Melinda Wenner Moyer

Getty Images

Intuitively, it makes sense Splatterhouse and Postal 2 would serve as virtual training sessions for teens, encouraging them to act out in ways that mimic game-related violence. But many studies have failed to find a clear connection between violent game play and belligerent behavior, and the controversy over whether the shoot-‘em-up world transfers to real life has persisted for years. A new study published on October 1 in Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences tries to resolve the controversy by weighing the findings of two dozen studies on the topic.

The meta-analysis does tie violent video games to a small increase in physical aggression among adolescents and preteens. Yet debate is by no means over. Whereas the analysis was undertaken to help settle the science on the issue, researchers still disagree on the real-world significance of the findings.

This new analysis attempted to navigate through the minefield of conflicting research. Many studies find gaming associated with increases in aggression, but others identify no such link. A small but vocal cadre of researchers have argued much of the work implicating video games has serious flaws in that, among other things, it measures the frequency of aggressive thoughts or language rather than physically aggressive behaviors like hitting or pushing, which have more real-world relevance.

On supporting science journalism

If you're enjoying this article, consider supporting our award-winning journalism by subscribing . By purchasing a subscription you are helping to ensure the future of impactful stories about the discoveries and ideas shaping our world today.

Jay Hull, a social psychologist at Dartmouth College and a co-author on the new paper, has never been convinced by the critiques that have disparaged purported ties between gaming and aggression. “I just kept reading, over and over again, [these] criticisms of the literature and going, ‘that’s just not true,’” he says. So he and his colleagues designed the new meta-analysis to address these criticisms head-on and determine if they had merit.

Hull and colleagues pooled data from 24 studies that had been selected to avoid some of the criticisms leveled at earlier work. They only included research that measured the relationship between violent video game use and overt physical aggression. They also limited their analysis to studies that statistically controlled for several factors that could influence the relationship between gaming and subsequent behavior, such as age and baseline aggressive behavior.

Even with these constraints, their analysis found kids who played violent video games did become more aggressive over time. But the changes in behavior were not big. “According to traditional ways of looking at these numbers, it’s not a large effect—I would say it’s relatively small,” he says. But it’s “statistically reliable—it’s not by chance and not inconsequential.”

Their findings mesh with a 2015 literature review conducted by the American Psychological Association, which concluded violent video games worsen aggressive behavior in older children, adolescents and young adults. Together, Hull’s meta-analysis and the APA report help give clarity to the existing body of research, says Douglas Gentile, a developmental psychologist at Iowa State University who was not involved in conducting the meta-analysis. “Media violence is one risk factor for aggression,” he says. “It's not the biggest, it’s also not the smallest, but it’s worth paying attention to.”

Yet researchers who have been critical of links between games and violence contend Hull’s meta-analysis does not settle the issue. “They don’t find much. They just try to make it sound like they do,” says Christopher Ferguson, a psychologist at Stetson University in Florida, who has published papers questioning the link between violent video games and aggression.

Ferguson argues the degree to which video game use increases aggression in Hull’s analysis—what is known in psychology as the estimated “effect size”—is so small as to be essentially meaningless. After statistically controlling for several other factors, the meta-analysis reported an effect size of 0.08, which suggests that violent video games account for less than one percent of the variation in aggressive behavior among U.S. teens and pre-teens—if, in fact, there is a cause-and effect relationship between game play and hostile actions. It may instead be that the relationship between gaming and aggression is a statistical artifact caused by lingering flaws in study design, Ferguson says.  

Johannes Breuer, a psychologist at GESIS–Leibniz Institute for the Social Sciences in Germany, agrees, noting that according to “a common rule of thumb in psychological research,” effect sizes below 0.1 are “considered trivial.” He adds meta-analyses are only as valid as the studies included in them, and that work on the issue has been plagued by methodological problems. For one thing, studies vary in terms of the criteria they use to determine if a video game is violent or not. By some measures, the Super Mario Bros. games would be considered violent, but by others not. Studies, too, often rely on subjects self-reporting their own aggressive acts, and they may not do so accurately. “All of this is not to say that the results of this meta-analysis are not valid,” he says. “But things like this need to be kept in mind when interpreting the findings and discussing their meaning.”

Hull says, however, that the effect size his team found still has real-world significance. An analysis of one of his earlier studies, which reported a similar estimated effect size of 0.083, found playing violent video games was linked with almost double the risk that kids would be sent to the school principal’s office for fighting. The study began by taking a group of children who hadn’t been dispatched to the principal in the previous month and then tracked them for a subsequent eight months. It found 4.8 percent of kids who reported only rarely playing violent video games were sent to the principal’s office at least once during that period compared with 9 percent who reported playing violent video games frequently. Hull theorizes violent games help kids become more comfortable with taking risks and engaging in abnormal behavior. “Their sense of right and wrong is being warped,” he notes.

Hull and his colleagues also found evidence ethnicity shapes the relationship between violent video games and aggression. White players seem more susceptible to the games' putative effects on behavior than do Hispanic and Asian players. Hull isn’t sure why, but he suspects the games' varying impact relates to how much kids are influenced by the norms of American culture, which, he says, are rooted in rugged individualism and a warriorlike mentality that may incite video game players to identify with aggressors rather than victims. It might “dampen sympathy toward their virtual victims,” he and his co-authors wrote, “with consequences for their values and behavior outside the game.”

Social scientists will, no doubt, continue to debate the psychological impacts of killing within the confines of interactive games. In a follow-up paper Hull says he plans to tackle the issue of the real-world significance of violent game play, and hopes it adds additional clarity. “It’s a knotty issue,” he notes—and it’s an open question whether research will ever quell the controversy.

• Share full article

Advertisement

Supported by

Op-Ed Contributor

The Real Problem With Video Games

By Seth Schiesel

• March 13, 2018

Donald Trump has long claimed that exposure to simulated violence in video games begets violent tendencies in real life. “Video game violence and glorification must be stopped — it is creating monsters!” he tweeted in 2012.

In the wake of the school shooting in Parkland, Fla., as the nation debated gun control, Mr. Trump returned to that theme. “We have to look at the internet because a lot of bad things are happening to young kids and young minds, and their minds are being formed,” he said. He went on to implicate video games in particular: “I’m hearing more and more people say the level of violence on video games is really shaping young people’s thoughts.”

On Thursday, President Trump summoned video game executives to the White House to castigate them for the violence depicted in their products. The executives were joined by Republican members of Congress and by activists who have campaigned against violence in media.

The White House meeting did not, however, include any social scientists who have studied the effects of video games. That would have been too problematic. Decades of research, after all, have failed to find any significant relationship between playing violent video games and behaving violently in real life.

If anything, there may be a stronger connection between school violence and the sort of creative writing educators seek to foster. When the United States Secret Service and the Department of Education studied violence in schools , they found that 37 percent of attackers “exhibited an interest in violence in their own writings, such as poems, essays, or journal entries,” while only 12 percent exhibited an interest in violent video games.

Video games do not create murderers. With his Thursday meeting, the president was merely engaging in political distraction.

And yet Mr. Trump was absolutely right when he said that “bad things” are happening on the internet. Video games do have a big problem, but it is not stylized virtual violence. Rather, it is the bigotry, social abuse, sexism and other toxic behavior to which players too often subject one another when gaming together online.

In other words: It’s not the content; it’s the culture.

Listen to the voice communications of almost any popular online first-person shooter game and you will hear players constantly using racial and homophobic slurs. Make a mistake in just about any team-based combat game and it won’t be long before one of your teammates chastises you with some vile epithet. There is more than one game community where “Jew” is used as a verb, meaning to make money. In many games, women who speak up on voice communications are routinely mocked and harassed.

While researchers have devoted ample time to studying the emotional and psychological effects of virtual video game violence, the actual social behavior of players has largely escaped academic attention. That should change. The racism, homophobia and misogyny prevalent in many online game precincts can amount to emotional abuse. This is a phenomenon that needs to be better understood and more widely known.

In this respect, Melania Trump’s campaign against cyberbullying, largely rhetorical though it is, addresses a more serious problem than does her husband’s concern with virtual gunplay. But there is not much the government can do about this.

Game companies, too, cannot be expected to constantly police the communications and communities of millions of players. Some companies, such as Blizzard Entertainment (the creator of “World of Warcraft”) and Riot Games (“League of Legends”), deserve credit for at least attempting to curb the toxicity of their customers, allowing conscientious players to report their obnoxious peers and then devoting personnel to reviewing complaints and disciplining consistently abusive players. But it is a gargantuan task.

As with many cultural crises, it is up to everyday people, not politicians or executives, to generate true solutions. The real responsibility lies with the players themselves — and for younger players, to their parents as well — to confront the real problem with video games.

Seth Schiesel is a former reporter and video game critic for The New York Times.

Follow The New York Times Opinion section on Facebook and Twitter (@NYTopinion) , and sign up for the Opinion Today newsletter .

Thank you for visiting nature.com. You are using a browser version with limited support for CSS. To obtain the best experience, we recommend you use a more up to date browser (or turn off compatibility mode in Internet Explorer). In the meantime, to ensure continued support, we are displaying the site without styles and JavaScript.

• View all journals
• My Account Login
• Explore content
• About the journal
• Publish with us
• Sign up for alerts
• Open access
• Published: 13 March 2018

Does playing violent video games cause aggression? A longitudinal intervention study

• Simone Kühn 1 , 2 ,
• Dimitrij Tycho Kugler 2 ,
• Katharina Schmalen 1 ,
• Markus Weichenberger 1 ,
• Charlotte Witt 1 &
• Jürgen Gallinat 2  

Molecular Psychiatry volume  24 ,  pages 1220–1234 ( 2019 ) Cite this article

545k Accesses

102 Citations

2346 Altmetric

Metrics details

• Neuroscience

It is a widespread concern that violent video games promote aggression, reduce pro-social behaviour, increase impulsivity and interfere with cognition as well as mood in its players. Previous experimental studies have focussed on short-term effects of violent video gameplay on aggression, yet there are reasons to believe that these effects are mostly the result of priming. In contrast, the present study is the first to investigate the effects of long-term violent video gameplay using a large battery of tests spanning questionnaires, behavioural measures of aggression, sexist attitudes, empathy and interpersonal competencies, impulsivity-related constructs (such as sensation seeking, boredom proneness, risk taking, delay discounting), mental health (depressivity, anxiety) as well as executive control functions, before and after 2 months of gameplay. Our participants played the violent video game Grand Theft Auto V, the non-violent video game The Sims 3 or no game at all for 2 months on a daily basis. No significant changes were observed, neither when comparing the group playing a violent video game to a group playing a non-violent game, nor to a passive control group. Also, no effects were observed between baseline and posttest directly after the intervention, nor between baseline and a follow-up assessment 2 months after the intervention period had ended. The present results thus provide strong evidence against the frequently debated negative effects of playing violent video games in adults and will therefore help to communicate a more realistic scientific perspective on the effects of violent video gaming.

Similar content being viewed by others

No effect of short term exposure to gambling like reward systems on post game risk taking

Nicholas J. D’Amico, Aaron Drummond, … James D. Sauer

Increasing prosocial behavior and decreasing selfishness in the lab and everyday life

Andrew T. Gloster, Marcia T. B. Rinner & Andrea H. Meyer

Dynamics of the immediate behavioral response to partial social exclusion

J. F. Dewald-Kaufmann, T. Wüstenberg, … F. Padberg

The concern that violent video games may promote aggression or reduce empathy in its players is pervasive and given the popularity of these games their psychological impact is an urgent issue for society at large. Contrary to the custom, this topic has also been passionately debated in the scientific literature. One research camp has strongly argued that violent video games increase aggression in its players [ 1 , 2 ], whereas the other camp [ 3 , 4 ] repeatedly concluded that the effects are minimal at best, if not absent. Importantly, it appears that these fundamental inconsistencies cannot be attributed to differences in research methodology since even meta-analyses, with the goal to integrate the results of all prior studies on the topic of aggression caused by video games led to disparate conclusions [ 2 , 3 ]. These meta-analyses had a strong focus on children, and one of them [ 2 ] reported a marginal age effect suggesting that children might be even more susceptible to violent video game effects.

To unravel this topic of research, we designed a randomised controlled trial on adults to draw causal conclusions on the influence of video games on aggression. At present, almost all experimental studies targeting the effects of violent video games on aggression and/or empathy focussed on the effects of short-term video gameplay. In these studies the duration for which participants were instructed to play the games ranged from 4 min to maximally 2 h (mean = 22 min, median = 15 min, when considering all experimental studies reviewed in two of the recent major meta-analyses in the field [ 3 , 5 ]) and most frequently the effects of video gaming have been tested directly after gameplay.

It has been suggested that the effects of studies focussing on consequences of short-term video gameplay (mostly conducted on college student populations) are mainly the result of priming effects, meaning that exposure to violent content increases the accessibility of aggressive thoughts and affect when participants are in the immediate situation [ 6 ]. However, above and beyond this the General Aggression Model (GAM, [ 7 ]) assumes that repeatedly primed thoughts and feelings influence the perception of ongoing events and therewith elicits aggressive behaviour as a long-term effect. We think that priming effects are interesting and worthwhile exploring, but in contrast to the notion of the GAM our reading of the literature is that priming effects are short-lived (suggested to only last for <5 min and may potentially reverse after that time [ 8 ]). Priming effects should therefore only play a role in very close temporal proximity to gameplay. Moreover, there are a multitude of studies on college students that have failed to replicate priming effects [ 9 , 10 , 11 ] and associated predictions of the so-called GAM such as a desensitisation against violent content [ 12 , 13 , 14 ] in adolescents and college students or a decrease of empathy [ 15 ] and pro-social behaviour [ 16 , 17 ] as a result of playing violent video games.

However, in our view the question that society is actually interested in is not: “Are people more aggressive after having played violent video games for a few minutes? And are these people more aggressive minutes after gameplay ended?”, but rather “What are the effects of frequent, habitual violent video game playing? And for how long do these effects persist (not in the range of minutes but rather weeks and months)?” For this reason studies are needed in which participants are trained over longer periods of time, tested after a longer delay after acute playing and tested with broader batteries assessing aggression but also other relevant domains such as empathy as well as mood and cognition. Moreover, long-term follow-up assessments are needed to demonstrate long-term effects of frequent violent video gameplay. To fill this gap, we set out to expose adult participants to two different types of video games for a period of 2 months and investigate changes in measures of various constructs of interest at least one day after the last gaming session and test them once more 2 months after the end of the gameplay intervention. In contrast to the GAM, we hypothesised no increases of aggression or decreases in pro-social behaviour even after long-term exposure to a violent video game due to our reasoning that priming effects of violent video games are short-lived and should therefore not influence measures of aggression if they are not measured directly after acute gaming. In the present study, we assessed potential changes in the following domains: behavioural as well as questionnaire measures of aggression, empathy and interpersonal competencies, impulsivity-related constructs (such as sensation seeking, boredom proneness, risk taking, delay discounting), and depressivity and anxiety as well as executive control functions. As the effects on aggression and pro-social behaviour were the core targets of the present study, we implemented multiple tests for these domains. This broad range of domains with its wide coverage and the longitudinal nature of the study design enabled us to draw more general conclusions regarding the causal effects of violent video games.

Materials and methods

Participants.

Ninety healthy participants (mean age = 28 years, SD = 7.3, range: 18–45, 48 females) were recruited by means of flyers and internet advertisements. The sample consisted of college students as well as of participants from the general community. The advertisement mentioned that we were recruiting for a longitudinal study on video gaming, but did not mention that we would offer an intervention or that we were expecting training effects. Participants were randomly assigned to the three groups ruling out self-selection effects. The sample size was based on estimates from a previous study with a similar design [ 18 ]. After complete description of the study, the participants’ informed written consent was obtained. The local ethics committee of the Charité University Clinic, Germany, approved of the study. We included participants that reported little, preferably no video game usage in the past 6 months (none of the participants ever played the game Grand Theft Auto V (GTA) or Sims 3 in any of its versions before). We excluded participants with psychological or neurological problems. The participants received financial compensation for the testing sessions (200 Euros) and performance-dependent additional payment for two behavioural tasks detailed below, but received no money for the training itself.

Training procedure

The violent video game group (5 participants dropped out between pre- and posttest, resulting in a group of n  = 25, mean age = 26.6 years, SD = 6.0, 14 females) played the game Grand Theft Auto V on a Playstation 3 console over a period of 8 weeks. The active control group played the non-violent video game Sims 3 on the same console (6 participants dropped out, resulting in a group of n  = 24, mean age = 25.8 years, SD = 6.8, 12 females). The passive control group (2 participants dropped out, resulting in a group of n  = 28, mean age = 30.9 years, SD = 8.4, 12 females) was not given a gaming console and had no task but underwent the same testing procedure as the two other groups. The passive control group was not aware of the fact that they were part of a control group to prevent self-training attempts. The experimenters testing the participants were blind to group membership, but we were unable to prevent participants from talking about the game during testing, which in some cases lead to an unblinding of experimental condition. Both training groups were instructed to play the game for at least 30 min a day. Participants were only reimbursed for the sessions in which they came to the lab. Our previous research suggests that the perceived fun in gaming was positively associated with training outcome [ 18 ] and we speculated that enforcing training sessions through payment would impair motivation and thus diminish the potential effect of the intervention. Participants underwent a testing session before (baseline) and after the training period of 2 months (posttest 1) as well as a follow-up testing sessions 2 months after the training period (posttest 2).

Grand Theft Auto V (GTA)

GTA is an action-adventure video game situated in a fictional highly violent game world in which players are rewarded for their use of violence as a means to advance in the game. The single-player story follows three criminals and their efforts to commit heists while under pressure from a government agency. The gameplay focuses on an open world (sandbox game) where the player can choose between different behaviours. The game also allows the player to engage in various side activities, such as action-adventure, driving, third-person shooting, occasional role-playing, stealth and racing elements. The open world design lets players freely roam around the fictional world so that gamers could in principle decide not to commit violent acts.

The Sims 3 (Sims)

Sims is a life simulation game and also classified as a sandbox game because it lacks clearly defined goals. The player creates virtual individuals called “Sims”, and customises their appearance, their personalities and places them in a home, directs their moods, satisfies their desires and accompanies them in their daily activities and by becoming part of a social network. It offers opportunities, which the player may choose to pursue or to refuse, similar as GTA but is generally considered as a pro-social and clearly non-violent game.

Assessment battery

To assess aggression and associated constructs we used the following questionnaires: Buss–Perry Aggression Questionnaire [ 19 ], State Hostility Scale [ 20 ], Updated Illinois Rape Myth Acceptance Scale [ 21 , 22 ], Moral Disengagement Scale [ 23 , 24 ], the Rosenzweig Picture Frustration Test [ 25 , 26 ] and a so-called World View Measure [ 27 ]. All of these measures have previously been used in research investigating the effects of violent video gameplay, however, the first two most prominently. Additionally, behavioural measures of aggression were used: a Word Completion Task, a Lexical Decision Task [ 28 ] and the Delay frustration task [ 29 ] (an inter-correlation matrix is depicted in Supplementary Figure 1 1). From these behavioural measures, the first two were previously used in research on the effects of violent video gameplay. To assess variables that have been related to the construct of impulsivity, we used the Brief Sensation Seeking Scale [ 30 ] and the Boredom Propensity Scale [ 31 ] as well as tasks assessing risk taking and delay discounting behaviourally, namely the Balloon Analogue Risk Task [ 32 ] and a Delay-Discounting Task [ 33 ]. To quantify pro-social behaviour, we employed: Interpersonal Reactivity Index [ 34 ] (frequently used in research on the effects of violent video gameplay), Balanced Emotional Empathy Scale [ 35 ], Reading the Mind in the Eyes test [ 36 ], Interpersonal Competence Questionnaire [ 37 ] and Richardson Conflict Response Questionnaire [ 38 ]. To assess depressivity and anxiety, which has previously been associated with intense video game playing [ 39 ], we used Beck Depression Inventory [ 40 ] and State Trait Anxiety Inventory [ 41 ]. To characterise executive control function, we used a Stop Signal Task [ 42 ], a Multi-Source Interference Task [ 43 ] and a Task Switching Task [ 44 ] which have all been previously used to assess effects of video gameplay. More details on all instruments used can be found in the Supplementary Material.

Data analysis

On the basis of the research question whether violent video game playing enhances aggression and reduces empathy, the focus of the present analysis was on time by group interactions. We conducted these interaction analyses separately, comparing the violent video game group against the active control group (GTA vs. Sims) and separately against the passive control group (GTA vs. Controls) that did not receive any intervention and separately for the potential changes during the intervention period (baseline vs. posttest 1) and to test for potential long-term changes (baseline vs. posttest 2). We employed classical frequentist statistics running a repeated-measures ANOVA controlling for the covariates sex and age.

Since we collected 52 separate outcome variables and conduced four different tests with each (GTA vs. Sims, GTA vs. Controls, crossed with baseline vs. posttest 1, baseline vs. posttest 2), we had to conduct 52 × 4 = 208 frequentist statistical tests. Setting the alpha value to 0.05 means that by pure chance about 10.4 analyses should become significant. To account for this multiple testing problem and the associated alpha inflation, we conducted a Bonferroni correction. According to Bonferroni, the critical value for the entire set of n tests is set to an alpha value of 0.05 by taking alpha/ n  = 0.00024.

Since the Bonferroni correction has sometimes been criticised as overly conservative, we conducted false discovery rate (FDR) correction [ 45 ]. FDR correction also determines adjusted p -values for each test, however, it controls only for the number of false discoveries in those tests that result in a discovery (namely a significant result).

Moreover, we tested for group differences at the baseline assessment using independent t -tests, since those may hamper the interpretation of significant interactions between group and time that we were primarily interested in.

Since the frequentist framework does not enable to evaluate whether the observed null effect of the hypothesised interaction is indicative of the absence of a relation between violent video gaming and our dependent variables, the amount of evidence in favour of the null hypothesis has been tested using a Bayesian framework. Within the Bayesian framework both the evidence in favour of the null and the alternative hypothesis are directly computed based on the observed data, giving rise to the possibility of comparing the two. We conducted Bayesian repeated-measures ANOVAs comparing the model in favour of the null and the model in favour of the alternative hypothesis resulting in a Bayes factor (BF) using Bayesian Information criteria [ 46 ]. The BF 01 suggests how much more likely the data is to occur under the null hypothesis. All analyses were performed using the JASP software package ( https://jasp-stats.org ).

Sex distribution in the present study did not differ across the groups ( χ 2 p -value > 0.414). However, due to the fact that differences between males and females have been observed in terms of aggression and empathy [ 47 ], we present analyses controlling for sex. Since our random assignment to the three groups did result in significant age differences between groups, with the passive control group being significantly older than the GTA ( t (51) = −2.10, p  = 0.041) and the Sims group ( t (50) = −2.38, p  = 0.021), we also controlled for age.

The participants in the violent video game group played on average 35 h and the non-violent video game group 32 h spread out across the 8 weeks interval (with no significant group difference p  = 0.48).

To test whether participants assigned to the violent GTA game show emotional, cognitive and behavioural changes, we present the results of repeated-measure ANOVA time x group interaction analyses separately for GTA vs. Sims and GTA vs. Controls (Tables  1 – 3 ). Moreover, we split the analyses according to the time domain into effects from baseline assessment to posttest 1 (Table  2 ) and effects from baseline assessment to posttest 2 (Table  3 ) to capture more long-lasting or evolving effects. In addition to the statistical test values, we report partial omega squared ( ω 2 ) as an effect size measure. Next to the classical frequentist statistics, we report the results of a Bayesian statistical approach, namely BF 01 , the likelihood with which the data is to occur under the null hypothesis that there is no significant time × group interaction. In Table  2 , we report the presence of significant group differences at baseline in the right most column.

Since we conducted 208 separate frequentist tests we expected 10.4 significant effects simply by chance when setting the alpha value to 0.05. In fact we found only eight significant time × group interactions (these are marked with an asterisk in Tables  2 and 3 ).

When applying a conservative Bonferroni correction, none of those tests survive the corrected threshold of p  < 0.00024. Neither does any test survive the more lenient FDR correction. The arithmetic mean of the frequentist test statistics likewise shows that on average no significant effect was found (bottom rows in Tables  2 and 3 ).

In line with the findings from a frequentist approach, the harmonic mean of the Bayesian factor BF 01 is consistently above one but not very far from one. This likewise suggests that there is very likely no interaction between group × time and therewith no detrimental effects of the violent video game GTA in the domains tested. The evidence in favour of the null hypothesis based on the Bayes factor is not massive, but clearly above 1. Some of the harmonic means are above 1.6 and constitute substantial evidence [ 48 ]. However, the harmonic mean has been criticised as unstable. Owing to the fact that the sum is dominated by occasional small terms in the likelihood, one may underestimate the actual evidence in favour of the null hypothesis [ 49 ].

To test the sensitivity of the present study to detect relevant effects we computed the effect size that we would have been able to detect. The information we used consisted of alpha error probability = 0.05, power = 0.95, our sample size, number of groups and of measurement occasions and correlation between the repeated measures at posttest 1 and posttest 2 (average r  = 0.68). According to G*Power [ 50 ], we could detect small effect sizes of f  = 0.16 (equals η 2  = 0.025 and r  = 0.16) in each separate test. When accounting for the conservative Bonferroni-corrected p -value of 0.00024, still a medium effect size of f  = 0.23 (equals η 2  = 0.05 and r  = 0.22) would have been detectable. A meta-analysis by Anderson [ 2 ] reported an average effects size of r  = 0.18 for experimental studies testing for aggressive behaviour and another by Greitmeyer [ 5 ] reported average effect sizes of r  = 0.19, 0.25 and 0.17 for effects of violent games on aggressive behaviour, cognition and affect, all of which should have been detectable at least before multiple test correction.

Within the scope of the present study we tested the potential effects of playing the violent video game GTA V for 2 months against an active control group that played the non-violent, rather pro-social life simulation game The Sims 3 and a passive control group. Participants were tested before and after the long-term intervention and at a follow-up appointment 2 months later. Although we used a comprehensive test battery consisting of questionnaires and computerised behavioural tests assessing aggression, impulsivity-related constructs, mood, anxiety, empathy, interpersonal competencies and executive control functions, we did not find relevant negative effects in response to violent video game playing. In fact, only three tests of the 208 statistical tests performed showed a significant interaction pattern that would be in line with this hypothesis. Since at least ten significant effects would be expected purely by chance, we conclude that there were no detrimental effects of violent video gameplay.

This finding stands in contrast to some experimental studies, in which short-term effects of violent video game exposure have been investigated and where increases in aggressive thoughts and affect as well as decreases in helping behaviour have been observed [ 1 ]. However, these effects of violent video gaming on aggressiveness—if present at all (see above)—seem to be rather short-lived, potentially lasting <15 min [ 8 , 51 ]. In addition, these short-term effects of video gaming are far from consistent as multiple studies fail to demonstrate or replicate them [ 16 , 17 ]. This may in part be due to problems, that are very prominent in this field of research, namely that the outcome measures of aggression and pro-social behaviour, are poorly standardised, do not easily generalise to real-life behaviour and may have lead to selective reporting of the results [ 3 ]. We tried to address these concerns by including a large set of outcome measures that were mostly inspired by previous studies demonstrating effects of short-term violent video gameplay on aggressive behaviour and thoughts, that we report exhaustively.

Since effects observed only for a few minutes after short sessions of video gaming are not representative of what society at large is actually interested in, namely how habitual violent video gameplay affects behaviour on a more long-term basis, studies employing longer training intervals are highly relevant. Two previous studies have employed longer training intervals. In an online study, participants with a broad age range (14–68 years) have been trained in a violent video game for 4 weeks [ 52 ]. In comparison to a passive control group no changes were observed, neither in aggression-related beliefs, nor in aggressive social interactions assessed by means of two questions. In a more recent study, participants played a previous version of GTA for 12 h spread across 3 weeks [ 53 ]. Participants were compared to a passive control group using the Buss–Perry aggression questionnaire, a questionnaire assessing impulsive or reactive aggression, attitude towards violence, and empathy. The authors only report a limited increase in pro-violent attitude. Unfortunately, this study only assessed posttest measures, which precludes the assessment of actual changes caused by the game intervention.

The present study goes beyond these studies by showing that 2 months of violent video gameplay does neither lead to any significant negative effects in a broad assessment battery administered directly after the intervention nor at a follow-up assessment 2 months after the intervention. The fact that we assessed multiple domains, not finding an effect in any of them, makes the present study the most comprehensive in the field. Our battery included self-report instruments on aggression (Buss–Perry aggression questionnaire, State Hostility scale, Illinois Rape Myth Acceptance scale, Moral Disengagement scale, World View Measure and Rosenzweig Picture Frustration test) as well as computer-based tests measuring aggressive behaviour such as the delay frustration task and measuring the availability of aggressive words using the word completion test and a lexical decision task. Moreover, we assessed impulse-related concepts such as sensation seeking, boredom proneness and associated behavioural measures such as the computerised Balloon analogue risk task, and delay discounting. Four scales assessing empathy and interpersonal competence scales, including the reading the mind in the eyes test revealed no effects of violent video gameplay. Neither did we find any effects on depressivity (Becks depression inventory) nor anxiety measured as a state as well as a trait. This is an important point, since several studies reported higher rates of depressivity and anxiety in populations of habitual video gamers [ 54 , 55 ]. Last but not least, our results revealed also no substantial changes in executive control tasks performance, neither in the Stop signal task, the Multi-source interference task or a Task switching task. Previous studies have shown higher performance of habitual action video gamers in executive tasks such as task switching [ 56 , 57 , 58 ] and another study suggests that training with action video games improves task performance that relates to executive functions [ 59 ], however, these associations were not confirmed by a meta-analysis in the field [ 60 ]. The absence of changes in the stop signal task fits well with previous studies that likewise revealed no difference between in habitual action video gamers and controls in terms of action inhibition [ 61 , 62 ]. Although GTA does not qualify as a classical first-person shooter as most of the previously tested action video games, it is classified as an action-adventure game and shares multiple features with those action video games previously related to increases in executive function, including the need for hand–eye coordination and fast reaction times.

Taken together, the findings of the present study show that an extensive game intervention over the course of 2 months did not reveal any specific changes in aggression, empathy, interpersonal competencies, impulsivity-related constructs, depressivity, anxiety or executive control functions; neither in comparison to an active control group that played a non-violent video game nor to a passive control group. We observed no effects when comparing a baseline and a post-training assessment, nor when focussing on more long-term effects between baseline and a follow-up interval 2 months after the participants stopped training. To our knowledge, the present study employed the most comprehensive test battery spanning a multitude of domains in which changes due to violent video games may have been expected. Therefore the present results provide strong evidence against the frequently debated negative effects of playing violent video games. This debate has mostly been informed by studies showing short-term effects of violent video games when tests were administered immediately after a short playtime of a few minutes; effects that may in large be caused by short-lived priming effects that vanish after minutes. The presented results will therefore help to communicate a more realistic scientific perspective of the real-life effects of violent video gaming. However, future research is needed to demonstrate the absence of effects of violent video gameplay in children.

Anderson CA, Bushman BJ. Effects of violent video games on aggressive behavior, aggressive cognition, aggressive affect, physiological arousal, and prosocial behavior: a meta-analytic review of the scientific literature. Psychol Sci. 2001;12:353–9.

Article   CAS   Google Scholar  

Anderson CA, Shibuya A, Ihori N, Swing EL, Bushman BJ, Sakamoto A, et al. Violent video game effects on aggression, empathy, and prosocial behavior in eastern and western countries: a meta-analytic review. Psychol Bull. 2010;136:151–73.

Article   Google Scholar  

Ferguson CJ. Do angry birds make for angry children? A meta-analysis of video game influences on children’s and adolescents’ aggression, mental health, prosocial behavior, and academic performance. Perspect Psychol Sci. 2015;10:646–66.

Ferguson CJ, Kilburn J. Much ado about nothing: the misestimation and overinterpretation of violent video game effects in eastern and western nations: comment on Anderson et al. (2010). Psychol Bull. 2010;136:174–8.

Greitemeyer T, Mugge DO. Video games do affect social outcomes: a meta-analytic review of the effects of violent and prosocial video game play. Pers Soc Psychol Bull. 2014;40:578–89.

Anderson CA, Carnagey NL, Eubanks J. Exposure to violent media: The effects of songs with violent lyrics on aggressive thoughts and feelings. J Pers Soc Psychol. 2003;84:960–71.

DeWall CN, Anderson CA, Bushman BJ. The general aggression model: theoretical extensions to violence. Psychol Violence. 2011;1:245–58.

Sestire MA, Bartholow BD. Violent and non-violent video games produce opposing effects on aggressive and prosocial outcomes. J Exp Soc Psychol. 2010;46:934–42.

Kneer J, Elson M, Knapp F. Fight fire with rainbows: The effects of displayed violence, difficulty, and performance in digital games on affect, aggression, and physiological arousal. Comput Hum Behav. 2016;54:142–8.

Kneer J, Glock S, Beskes S, Bente G. Are digital games perceived as fun or danger? Supporting and suppressing different game-related concepts. Cyber Beh Soc N. 2012;15:604–9.

Sauer JD, Drummond A, Nova N. Violent video games: the effects of narrative context and reward structure on in-game and postgame aggression. J Exp Psychol Appl. 2015;21:205–14.

Ballard M, Visser K, Jocoy K. Social context and video game play: impact on cardiovascular and affective responses. Mass Commun Soc. 2012;15:875–98.

Read GL, Ballard M, Emery LJ, Bazzini DG. Examining desensitization using facial electromyography: violent video games, gender, and affective responding. Comput Hum Behav. 2016;62:201–11.

Szycik GR, Mohammadi B, Hake M, Kneer J, Samii A, Munte TF, et al. Excessive users of violent video games do not show emotional desensitization: an fMRI study. Brain Imaging Behav. 2017;11:736–43.

Szycik GR, Mohammadi B, Munte TF, Te Wildt BT. Lack of evidence that neural empathic responses are blunted in excessive users of violent video games: an fMRI study. Front Psychol. 2017;8:174.

Tear MJ, Nielsen M. Failure to demonstrate that playing violent video games diminishes prosocial behavior. PLoS ONE. 2013;8:e68382.

Tear MJ, Nielsen M. Video games and prosocial behavior: a study of the effects of non-violent, violent and ultra-violent gameplay. Comput Hum Behav. 2014;41:8–13.

Kühn S, Gleich T, Lorenz RC, Lindenberger U, Gallinat J. Playing super Mario induces structural brain plasticity: gray matter changes resulting from training with a commercial video game. Mol Psychiatry. 2014;19:265–71.

Buss AH, Perry M. The aggression questionnaire. J Pers Soc Psychol. 1992;63:452.

Anderson CA, Deuser WE, DeNeve KM. Hot temperatures, hostile affect, hostile cognition, and arousal: Tests of a general model of affective aggression. Pers Soc Psychol Bull. 1995;21:434–48.

Payne DL, Lonsway KA, Fitzgerald LF. Rape myth acceptance: exploration of its structure and its measurement using the illinois rape myth acceptance scale. J Res Pers. 1999;33:27–68.

McMahon S, Farmer GL. An updated measure for assessing subtle rape myths. Social Work Res. 2011; 35:71–81.

Detert JR, Trevino LK, Sweitzer VL. Moral disengagement in ethical decision making: a study of antecedents and outcomes. J Appl Psychol. 2008;93:374–91.

Bandura A, Barbaranelli C, Caprara G, Pastorelli C. Mechanisms of moral disengagement in the exercise of moral agency. J Pers Soc Psychol. 1996;71:364–74.

Rosenzweig S. The picture-association method and its application in a study of reactions to frustration. J Pers. 1945;14:23.

Hörmann H, Moog W, Der Rosenzweig P-F. Test für Erwachsene deutsche Bearbeitung. Göttingen: Hogrefe; 1957.

Anderson CA, Dill KE. Video games and aggressive thoughts, feelings, and behavior in the laboratory and in life. J Pers Soc Psychol. 2000;78:772–90.

Przybylski AK, Deci EL, Rigby CS, Ryan RM. Competence-impeding electronic games and players’ aggressive feelings, thoughts, and behaviors. J Pers Soc Psychol. 2014;106:441.

Bitsakou P, Antrop I, Wiersema JR, Sonuga-Barke EJ. Probing the limits of delay intolerance: preliminary young adult data from the Delay Frustration Task (DeFT). J Neurosci Methods. 2006;151:38–44.

Hoyle RH, Stephenson MT, Palmgreen P, Lorch EP, Donohew RL. Reliability and validity of a brief measure of sensation seeking. Pers Individ Dif. 2002;32:401–14.

Farmer R, Sundberg ND. Boredom proneness: the development and correlates of a new scale. J Pers Assess. 1986;50:4–17.

Lejuez CW, Read JP, Kahler CW, Richards JB, Ramsey SE, Stuart GL, et al. Evaluation of a behavioral measure of risk taking: the Balloon Analogue Risk Task (BART). J Exp Psychol Appl. 2002;8:75–84.

Richards JB, Zhang L, Mitchell SH, de Wit H. Delay or probability discounting in a model of impulsive behavior: effect of alcohol. J Exp Anal Behav. 1999;71:121–43.

Davis MH. A multidimensional approach to individual differences in empathy. JSAS Cat Sel Doc Psychol. 1980;10:85.

Google Scholar  

Mehrabian A. Manual for the Balanced Emotional Empathy Scale (BEES). (Available from Albert Mehrabian, 1130 Alta Mesa Road, Monterey, CA, USA 93940); 1996.

Baron-Cohen S, Wheelwright S, Hill J, Raste Y, Plumb I. The “Reading the Mind in the Eyes” Test revised version: A study with normal adults, and adults with Asperger syndrome or high-functioning autism. J Child Psychol Psychiatry. 2001;42:241–51.

Buhrmester D, Furman W, Reis H, Wittenberg MT. Five domains of interpersonal competence in peer relations. J Pers Soc Psychol. 1988;55:991–1008.

Richardson DR, Green LR, Lago T. The relationship between perspective-taking and non-aggressive responding in the face of an attack. J Pers. 1998;66:235–56.

Maras D, Flament MF, Murray M, Buchholz A, Henderson KA, Obeid N, et al. Screen time is associated with depression and anxiety in Canadian youth. Prev Med. 2015;73:133–8.

Hautzinger M, Bailer M, Worall H, Keller F. Beck-Depressions-Inventar (BDI). Beck-Depressions-Inventar (BDI): Testhandbuch der deutschen Ausgabe. Bern: Huber; 1995.

Spielberger CD, Spielberger CD, Sydeman SJ, Sydeman SJ, Owen AE, Owen AE, et al. Measuring anxiety and anger with the State-Trait Anxiety Inventory (STAI) and the State-Trait Anger Expression Inventory (STAXI). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Publishers; 1999.

Lorenz RC, Gleich T, Buchert R, Schlagenhauf F, Kuhn S, Gallinat J. Interactions between glutamate, dopamine, and the neuronal signature of response inhibition in the human striatum. Hum Brain Mapp. 2015;36:4031–40.

Bush G, Shin LM. The multi-source interference task: an fMRI task that reliably activates the cingulo-frontal-parietal cognitive/attention network. Nat Protoc. 2006;1:308–13.

King JA, Colla M, Brass M, Heuser I, von Cramon D. Inefficient cognitive control in adult ADHD: evidence from trial-by-trial Stroop test and cued task switching performance. Behav Brain Funct. 2007;3:42.

Benjamini Y, Hochberg Y. Controlling the false discovery rate: a practical and powerful approach to multiple testing. J R Stat Soc. 1995;57:289–300.

Wagenmakers E-J. A practical solution to the pervasive problems of p values. Psychon Bull Rev. 2007;14:779–804.

Hay DF. The gradual emergence of sex differences in aggression: alternative hypotheses. Psychol Med. 2007;37:1527–37.

Jeffreys H. The Theory of Probability. Oxford: Clarendon Press; 1961.

Raftery AE, Newton MA, Satagopan YM, Krivitsky PN. Estimating the integrated likelihood via posterior simulation using the harmonic mean identity. In: Bernardo JM, Bayarri MJ, Berger JO, Dawid AP, Heckerman D, Smith AFM, et al., editors. Bayesian statistics. Oxford: University Press; 2007.

Faul F, Erdfelder E, Lang A-G, Buchner A. G*Power3: a flexible statistical power analysis program for the social, behavioral, and biomedical sciences. Behav Res Methods. 2007;39:175–91.

Barlett C, Branch O, Rodeheffer C, Harris R. How long do the short-term violent video game effects last? Aggress Behav. 2009;35:225–36.

Williams D, Skoric M. Internet fantasy violence: a test of aggression in an online game. Commun Monogr. 2005;72:217–33.

Teng SK, Chong GY, Siew AS, Skoric MM. Grand theft auto IV comes to Singapore: effects of repeated exposure to violent video games on aggression. Cyber Behav Soc Netw. 2011;14:597–602.

van Rooij AJ, Kuss DJ, Griffiths MD, Shorter GW, Schoenmakers TM, Van, de Mheen D. The (co-)occurrence of problematic video gaming, substance use, and psychosocial problems in adolescents. J Behav Addict. 2014;3:157–65.

Brunborg GS, Mentzoni RA, Froyland LR. Is video gaming, or video game addiction, associated with depression, academic achievement, heavy episodic drinking, or conduct problems? J Behav Addict. 2014;3:27–32.

Green CS, Sugarman MA, Medford K, Klobusicky E, Bavelier D. The effect of action video game experience on task switching. Comput Hum Behav. 2012;28:984–94.

Strobach T, Frensch PA, Schubert T. Video game practice optimizes executive control skills in dual-task and task switching situations. Acta Psychol. 2012;140:13–24.

Colzato LS, van Leeuwen PJ, van den Wildenberg WP, Hommel B. DOOM’d to switch: superior cognitive flexibility in players of first person shooter games. Front Psychol. 2010;1:8.

PubMed   PubMed Central   Google Scholar  

Hutchinson CV, Barrett DJK, Nitka A, Raynes K. Action video game training reduces the Simon effect. Psychon B Rev. 2016;23:587–92.

Powers KL, Brooks PJ, Aldrich NJ, Palladino MA, Alfieri L. Effects of video-game play on information processing: a meta-analytic investigation. Psychon Bull Rev. 2013;20:1055–79.

Colzato LS, van den Wildenberg WP, Zmigrod S, Hommel B. Action video gaming and cognitive control: playing first person shooter games is associated with improvement in working memory but not action inhibition. Psychol Res. 2013;77:234–9.

Steenbergen L, Sellaro R, Stock AK, Beste C, Colzato LS. Action video gaming and cognitive control: playing first person shooter games is associated with improved action cascading but not inhibition. PLoS ONE. 2015;10:e0144364.

Download references

Acknowledgements

SK has been funded by a Heisenberg grant from the German Science Foundation (DFG KU 3322/1-1, SFB 936/C7), the European Union (ERC-2016-StG-Self-Control-677804) and a Fellowship from the Jacobs Foundation (JRF 2016–2018).

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

Max Planck Institute for Human Development, Center for Lifespan Psychology, Lentzeallee 94, 14195, Berlin, Germany

Simone Kühn, Katharina Schmalen, Markus Weichenberger & Charlotte Witt

Clinic and Policlinic for Psychiatry and Psychotherapy, University Clinic Hamburg-Eppendorf, Martinistraße 52, 20246, Hamburg, Germany

Simone Kühn, Dimitrij Tycho Kugler & Jürgen Gallinat

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Simone Kühn .

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest.

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Electronic supplementary material

Supplementary material, rights and permissions.

Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article’s Creative Commons license, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article’s Creative Commons license and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this license, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ .

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article.

Kühn, S., Kugler, D., Schmalen, K. et al. Does playing violent video games cause aggression? A longitudinal intervention study. Mol Psychiatry 24 , 1220–1234 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41380-018-0031-7

Download citation

Received : 19 August 2017

Revised : 03 January 2018

Accepted : 15 January 2018

Published : 13 March 2018

Issue Date : August 2019

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1038/s41380-018-0031-7

Share this article

Anyone you share the following link with will be able to read this content:

Sorry, a shareable link is not currently available for this article.

Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative

This article is cited by

Exposure to hate speech deteriorates neurocognitive mechanisms of the ability to understand others’ pain.

• Agnieszka Pluta
• Joanna Mazurek
• Michał Bilewicz

Scientific Reports (2023)

The effects of violent video games on reactive-proactive aggression and cyberbullying

• Yunus Emre Dönmez

Current Psychology (2023)

Machen Computerspiele aggressiv?

• Jan Dieris-Hirche

Die Psychotherapie (2023)

The effect of competitive context in nonviolent video games on aggression: The mediating role of frustration and the moderating role of gender

• Jinqian Liao
• Yanling Liu

Systematic Review of Gaming and Neuropsychological Assessment of Social Cognition

• Elodie Hurel
• Marie Grall-Bronnec
• Gaëlle Challet-Bouju

Neuropsychology Review (2023)

Quick links

• Explore articles by subject
• Guide to authors
• Editorial policies

Filed under:

The frustrating, enduring debate over video games, violence, and guns

We asked players, parents, developers, and experts to weigh in on how to change the conversation around gaming.

Share this story

• Share this on Facebook
• Share this on Twitter
• Share this on Reddit
• Share All sharing options

Share All sharing options for: The frustrating, enduring debate over video games, violence, and guns

In the wake of two mass shootings earlier this month in El Paso, Texas, and Dayton, Ohio, the societal role of video games grabbed a familiar media spotlight. The El Paso shooter briefly referenced Call of Duty , a wildly popular game in which players assume the roles of soldiers during historical and fictional wartime, in his “manifesto.” And just this small mention of the video game seemed to have prompted President Donald Trump to return to a theme he’s emphasized before when looking to assign greater blame for violent incidents.

“We must stop the glorification of violence in our society,” he said in an August 5 press conference. “This includes the gruesome and grisly video games that are now commonplace. It is too easy today for troubled youth to surround themselves with a culture that celebrates violence.”

Trump’s statement suggesting a link between video games and real-world violence echoed sentiments shared by other lawmakers following the back-to-back mass shootings. It’s a response that major media outlets and retailers have also adopted of late; ESPN recently chose to delay broadcasting an esports tournament because of the shootings — a decision that seems to imply the network believes in a link between gaming and real-world violence. And Walmart made a controversial decision to temporarily remove all video game displays from its stores, even as it continues to openly sell guns.

But many members of the public, as well as researchers and some politicians, have counterargued that blaming video games sidesteps the real issue at the root of America’s mass shooting problem: a need for stronger gun control . The frenzied debate over video games within the larger conversation around gun violence underscores both how intense the fight over gun control has become and how easily games can become mired in political rhetoric.

But this isn’t a new development; blaming video games for real-world violence — any kind of real-world violence — is a longstanding cultural and political habit whose origins date back to the 1970s. It’s also arguably part of a larger recurring wave of concern over any pop culture that’s been perceived as morally deviant, from rock ’n’ roll to the occult , depending on the era. But as mass shootings continue to occur nationwide and attempts to stop them by enacting gun control legislature remain divisive, video games have again become an easy target.

The most recent clamor arose from a clash among several familiar foes. In one corner: politicians like Trump who cite video games as evidence of immoral and violent media’s negative societal impact. In another: people who play video games and resist this reading, while also trying to lodge separate critiques of violence within gaming. In another: scientists at odds over whether there are factual and causal links between video games and real-world violence. And in still another: members of the general public who, upon receiving alarmist messages about games from politicians and the news media, react with yet more alarm.

Subscribe to Today, Explained

Looking for a quick way to keep up with the never-ending news cycle? Host Sean Rameswaram will guide you through the most important stories at the end of each day.

Subscribe on Apple Podcasts , Spotify , Ove r cast , or wherever you listen to podcasts.

What is new, however, is that recent criticism of the narrative that video games lead to real-world violence seems particularly intensified, and it’s coming not just from gamers but also from scientists , some media outlets , even mass shooting survivors: David Hogg, who became a gun control advocate after surviving the 2018 mass shooting in Parkland, Florida, unveiled a new March for Our Lives gun control initiative in August, pointedly stating in his announcement on Twitter, “We know video games aren’t to blame.”

And on all sides is a sense that frustration is growing because so little has changed since the last time we had this debate — and since the time before that and the time before that.

There’s no science proving a link between video games and real-world violence. But that hasn’t quelled a debate that’s raged for decades.

Historically, video games have played a verifiable role in a handful of mass shootings, but the science linking video games to gun violence is murky . A vast body of psychology research, most of it conducted before 2015, argues strenuously that video games can contribute to increases in aggression . Yet much of this research has been contested by newer, contradictory findings from both psychologists and scholars in different academic fields. For example, Nickie Phillips , a criminologist whose research deals with violence in popular media, told me that “most criminologists are dismissive of a causal link between media and crime,” and that they’re instead interested in questions of violence as a social construct and how that contributes to political discourse.

That type of research, she stressed, is likely to be less flashy and headline-grabbing than psychology studies, which are more focused on pointing to direct behaviors and their causes. “Social meanings of crime are in transition,” Phillips said. “There’s not a single variable. As a public, we want a single concrete explanation as to why people commit atrocities, when the answers can be very complex.”

The debate over the science is easy to wade into, but it obscures just how preoccupied America is with dangerous media. The oldest moral panic over a video game may be the controversy over a 1976 game called Death Race , which awarded players points for driving over fleeing pedestrians dubbed “gremlins.” The game became mired in controversy, even sparking a segment on 60 Minutes . Interestingly, other games of the era that framed their mechanics through wartime violence, like the 1974 military game Tank , failed to cause as much public concern.

In his 2017 book Moral Combat: Why the War on Violent Video Games Is Wrong , psychologist Patrick Markey points out that before concerned citizens fixated on video games, many of them were worried about arcades — not because of the games they contained, but because they were licentious hangouts for teens. (Insert “ Ya Got Trouble ” here.) By the 1980s, “Arcades were being shut down across the nation by activist parents intent on protecting their children from the dangerous influences lurking within these neon-drenched dungeons,” Markey writes.

Then came the franchise that evolved arcade panic into gameplay panic: Midway Games’ Mortal Kombat , infamous for its gory “fatality” moves . With its 1992 arcade debut, Mortal Kombat sparked hysteria among concerned adults that led to a 1993 congressional hearing and the creation of the Entertainment Software Rating Board, or ESRB . The fighting game franchise still incites debate with every new release.

“Like people were really going to go out and rip people’s spines out,” Cypheroftyr , a gaming critic who typically goes by her internet handle, told me over the phone regarding the mainstream anxiety around Mortal Kombat in the 1990s. Cypheroftyr is an avid player of shooter games and other action games and the founder of the nonprofit I Need Diverse Games .

“I’m old enough to remember the whole Jack Thompson era of trying to say video games are violent and they should be banned,” she said, referencing the infamous disbarred obscenity lawyer known for a strident crusade against games and other media that has spanned decades .

Cypheroftyr pointed out that after the Columbine shooting in April 1999, politicians “were trying to blame both video games and Marilyn Manson. It just feels like this is too easy a scapegoat.”

Politicians have long seized on the idea that recreational fantasy and fictional media have an influence on real-world evil. In 2007, for example, Sen. Mitt Romney (R–UT) blamed “music and movies and TV and video games” for being full of “pornography and violence,” which he argued had influenced the Columbine shooters and, later, the 2007 Virginia Tech shooter.

Video games seem especially prone to garnering political attention in the wake of a tragedy — especially first-person shooters like Call of Duty. A stereotype of a mass shooter, isolated and perpetually consuming graphic violent content, seems to linger in the public’s consciousness. A neighbor of the 2018 Parkland shooter, for instance, told the Miami Herald that the shooter would play video games for up to 12 to 15 hours a day — and although that anecdotal report was unverified, it was still widely circulated.

A 2015 Pew study of 2,000 US adults found that even though 49 percent of adult Americans play video games, 40 percent of Americans also believe in a link between games and violence — specifically, that “people who play violent video games are more likely to be violent themselves.” Additionally, 32 percent of the people who told Pew they play video games also said they believe gaming contributes to an increase in aggression, even though their own experience as, presumably, nonviolent gamers would offer at least some evidence to the contrary.

One person who sees a correlation between violent games and a propensity for real-world violence is Tim Winter . Winter is the president of the Parents Television Council , a nonpartisan advocacy group that lobbies the entertainment industry against marketing graphic violence to children. He spent several years overseeing MGM’s former video game publishing division, MGM Interactive, and moved into advocacy when he became a parent. Growing up, his children played all kinds of video games, except for those he considered too graphic or violent.

In a phone interview, Winter told me his view aligns with the research supporting links between games and aggression.

“Anyone who uses the term ‘moral panic’ in my view is trying to diminish a bona fide conversation that needs to take place,” Winter said. “It’s a simple PR move to refute something that might actually have some value in the broader conversation.”

During our conversation, he compared the connection between violent media and harmful real-world effects to that between cigarettes and lung cancer. If you consume in moderation, he argues, you’ll probably be fine; but, over time, exposure to violent media can have “a cumulative negative effect.” (In fact, studies of infrequent smokers have shown that their risk of coronary disease is roughly equal to that of frequent smokers, and their risk of cancer is still significantly higher than that of nonsmokers.)

“What I believe to be true is that the media we consume has a very powerful impact on shaping our belief structure, our cognitive development, our values, and our opinions,” he said.

He added that it would be foolish to point to any one act of violence and say it was caused by any one video game — that, he argued, “would be like saying lung cancer was caused by that one specific cigarette I smoked.”

“But if you are likely to smoke packs a day over the course of many years, it has a cumulative negative effect on your health,” he continued. “I believe based on the research on both sides that that’s the prevailing truth.”

The debate endures because gun control isn’t being addressed — and games are an easy target

Like many people I spoke with for this story, Winter believes that the debate about gun violence has remained largely at a standstill since Columbine, while the number of mass shootings nationwide has continued to increase.

“If you look at the broader issue of gun violence in America, you have a number of organizations and constituencies pointing at different causes,” he said. “When you look back at what those arguments are, it’s the same arguments that have been made going back to Columbine. Whether it’s gun control, whether it’s mental illness, whether it’s violence in media culture — whatever the debate is about those three root causes, very little progress has been made on any of them.”

The glorification of violence is so culturally embedded in American media through TV, film, games, books, and practically every other available medium that there seems to be very little impetus to change anything about America’s gun culture. We can define “ gun culture ” here as the addition of an embrace of gun ownership and a nationwide oversupply of guns to what Phillips described as “ a culture of violence ” — one in which violence “becomes our go-to way of solving problems — whether that’s individual violence, police violence, state violence.”

“There’s a commodification of violence,” she said, “and we have to understand what that means.”

Naomi Clark , an independent game developer and co-chair of New York University’s Game Center program, agreed. “I find it more plausible that America’s long-standing culture of gun violence has affected video games, as a form of culture, than the other way around,” she told me in an email. “After all, this nation’s cultural traditions and attachments around guns are far older than video games.”

In light of incidents like Walmart’s removal of video game displays after the recent mass shootings while continuing to advertise guns, the connection between the shootings and America’s continued valorization of guns feels extremely stark. “We could ban video games tomorrow and mass shootings would still happen,” Cypheroftyr told me.

“What’s new about the current debate is that the scapegoat of videogaming has never been more nakedly exposed for what it is,” gaming sociologist Katherine Cross wrote in an email, “with Republicans and conservatives manifestly fearful of blaming systematic white supremacism, Trump’s rhetoric, or our nation’s permissive and freewheeling gun culture for the recent rash of terrorism.”

Because of the sensitivity around the issue of gun control, it’s easy for politicians to score points with constituents by focusing a conversation on games and sidestepping other action. “Politicians often blame video games because they are a safe target,” Moral Combat author Markey told me in an email. “There isn’t a giant video game lobby like other potential causes of mass shootings (like the NRA [National Rifle Association]). So [by targeting games], a politician can make it appear they are doing something without risking losing any votes.”

And the general public is often susceptible to this rhetoric, both because it’s emotional and because it may feed what they think they already know about games — even if that’s not a lot. “The narrative that violence in video games contributes to the gun violence in America is, I think, a good example of a bad idea that seems right to people who don’t look too closely at the facts,” Zak Garriss , a video game writer and designer who’s worked on a wide range of games, told me in an email.

“Video games are a global industry, dwarfing other entertainment industries in revenue in markets comprised of gamers from the UK, Germany, France, Japan, the US, and basically anywhere there’s electricity. Yet the spree shooting phenomenon seems to be seriously and uniquely a US issue right now. It’s also worth noting that the ratings systems across these countries vary, and in the case of Europe, are often more liberal in many regards than the US system,” Garriss said.

He also pointed out that this conversation frequently overshadows the important, innovative work that many games are engaged in. “Games like Stardew Valley , Minecraft , or Journey craft experiences that help people relax, detox after a day, bond with friends,” he said. “Games like Papers, Please , That Dragon Cancer , or Life Is Strange interrogate the harder and the darker elements of the human experience like love, grief, loneliness, and death.”

In other words, a conversation that focuses on games and guns alone dismisses the vital cultural role that video games play as art. “Play video games and you can jump on giant mushrooms, shoot a wizard on the moon, grow a farm, fall in love, experience nearly infinite worlds really,” Garriss told me. “If games have a unifying organizing principle, I’d say it’s to delight. The pursuit of fun.”

He continued: “To me, the tragedy, if there is one, in the current discourse around video games and violence, lies in failing to see the magic happening in the play. As devs, it’s a magic we’re chasing with every game. And as players, I think it’s a magic that has not just the potential but the actual power to bring people together, to aid mental health, to make us think, to help us heal. And to experience delight.”

But for some members of the public, games’ recreational, relaxational, and artistic values might be another thing that make them suspect. “If they don’t play games or ‘aged out of it,’ they might see them as frivolous or a waste of time,” Cypheroftyr says. “It’s easy to go, ‘Oh, you’re still playing video games? Why are you wasting your life?’”

That idea — that video games are a waste of time — is another longstanding element of cultural assumptions around games of all kinds, Clark, the game developer, told me. “Games have been an easy target in every era because there’s something inherently unproductive or even anti-productive about them, and so there’s also a long history of game designers trying to rehabilitate games and make them ‘do work’ or provide instruction.”

All of this makes it incredibly easy to fixate on video games instead of addressing difficult but more relevant targets, like NRA funding and easy access to guns. And that, in turn, makes it a complicated proposition to extricate video games from conversations about gun violence, let alone limit the conversation around violent games to people who might actually be in a position to create change, like the people who make the games in the first place.

Yet what’s striking when you drill down into the community around gaming is how many gamers agree with many of the arguments politicians are making. As a fan of shooter games, Cypheroftyr told me she routinely plays violent games like Call of Duty and the military action role-playing game (RPG) The Division . “I’m not out here trying to murder people,” she stressed. But like the Parents Television Council’s Winter, Cypheroftyr and many of the other people I spoke with agree that the gaming industry needs to do a lot more to examine the at times shocking imagery it perpetuates.

Many members of the gaming community are already discussing game violence

Multiple people I spoke with expressed frustration that the conversation about video games’ role in mass shootings is obscuring another, very important conversation to be had within the gaming community about violent games.

Clark told me that the public’s lack of nuance and an insistence on a binary reading of the issue is part of the problem. “Most people are capable of understanding that causes are complex,” she said, “that you can’t just point to one thing and say, ‘This is mostly or entirely to blame!’”

But she also cautioned that the gaming community’s reactionary defensiveness to this lack of nuance also prevents many video game fans from acknowledging that games do play a role within a violent culture. “That complexity cuts both ways,” she told me. “Even though it’s silly to say that ‘games cause violence,’ it’s also just as silly to say that games have nothing to do with a culture that has a violence problem.”

That culture is endemic to the gaming industry, added Justin Carter, a freelance journalist whose work focuses on video games and culture.

“The industry does have a fetishization of guns and violence,” Carter said. “You look at games like Borderlands or Destiny and one of the selling points is how many guns there are.” The upcoming first-person shooter game Borderlands 3 , he pointed out, boasts “over a billion” different guns from its 12 fictional weapons manufacturers , all of which tout special perks to get players to try their guns. These perks serve as marketing both inside and outside the game; the game’s publisher, 2K Games, invites players to exult in violence using language that speaks for itself :

Deliver devastating critical hits to enemies’ soft-and-sensitives, then joy-puke as your bullets ricochet towards other targets. ... Step 1: Hit your enemies with tracker tags. Step 2: Unleash a hail of Smart Bullets that track towards your targets. Step 3: Loot! Deal guaranteed elemental damage with your finger glued to the trigger ...

“There are very few [action/adventure] games that give you options other than murdering people,” Cypheroftyr said. “Games don’t do enough to show the other side of it. You shoot someone, you die, they die, you reset, you reload, and nothing happens.”

“I know that if I shoot people in a game it’s not real,” she added. “99.9 percent of people don’t need to be told that. I’m not playing out a power fantasy or anything, but I’ve become more aware of how most games [that] use violence [do so] to solve problems.”

An insistence from game developers on blithely ignoring the potential political messages of their games is another frustration for her. “All these game makers are like, there’s no politics in the game. There’s no message. And I’m like ... did you just send me through a war museum and you’re telling me this?!”

The game Cypheroftyr is referencing is The Division 2 , which features a section where players can engage in enemy combat during a walkthrough of a Vietnam War memorial museum. While she loves the game, she told me the fact that players use weapons from the Vietnam War era while in a war museum belies game developers’ frequent arguments that such games are apolitical.

Another game Cypheroftyr has found disturbing in its attempt to background politics without any real self-reflection is the popular adventure game Detroit Become Human , which displays pacifist Martin Luther King Jr. quotes alongside gameplay that allows players to choose extreme violence as an option. “You can take a more pacifistic approach, but you may not get the ending you want,” she explained.

She noted, too, that the military uses video games for training as part of what’s been dubbed the “ military-entertainment complex ,” with tactics involving shooter games that some ex-soldiers have referred to as “more like brainwashing than anything.” The US Army began exploring virtual training in 1999 and began developing its first tactics game a year later. The result, Full Spectrum Command , was a military-only version of 2003’s Full Spectrum Warrior . Since then, the military has used video games to teach soldiers everything from how to deal with combat scenarios to how to interact with Iraqi civilians .

The close connection between games and sanctioned real-world violence, i.e., war, is hard to deny with any plausibility. “When someone insists that these two parts of culture have absolutely nothing to do with each other,” Clark said, “it smacks of denial, and many game developers are asking themselves, ‘Do I want to be part of this landscape?’ even if they have zero belief that video games are causing violence.”

For all the gaming industry’s faults when it comes to frankly addressing gaming’s role in a violent culture, however, many people are quick to point out that critiques of in-game violence can also come from the video games themselves. In Batman: Arkham Asylum , for example, researchers Christina Fawcett and Steven Kohm recently found that the game “directly implicate[s] the player in violence enacted upon the bodies of criminals and patients alike.” Other games shift the focus away from the perpetrators to the victims — for example, This War of Mine is a survival game inspired by the Bosnian War that focuses not on soldiers but on civilians dealing with the costs of wartime violence.

But acknowledging that critiques of violent games are coming from within the gaming community doesn’t play well as part of the gun control debate. “It’s far too easy to scapegoat video games as low-hanging fruit instead of addressing the real issues,” Cypheroftyr said, “like the ease with which we can get weapons in this country, and why we don’t do more to punish the perpetrators [of gun violence].” She also cites the cultural tendency to excuse masculine aggression early on with a “b“boys will be boys” mentality — which can breed the kind of entitlement that leads to more violence later on.

All these factors combine to make the conversation around violent video games inherently political and part of a larger ongoing debate that ultimately centers on which media messages are the most responsible for fueling real-world violence.

The conversation surrounding violent games implicates violent gaming culture itself — which, in turn, implicates politicians who rail against games

Games journalist Carter told me he feels the gaming community needs to, in essence, reject the whole debate entirely because at this point in its life cycle, it’s disingenuous.

“We’ve been through enough shootings that you know the playbook, and it’s annoying that gamers and people in the industry will take this as a position that needs defending,” he told me. “It’s not a conversation worth having anymore solely on post-traumatic terms.”

Discussions about video game violence need to be held mainly within the games community, Carter said, and held “with people who are actually interested in figuring out a solution instead of politicians looking to pass off the blame for their ineptitude and greed.”

But some gamers told me they don’t trust the gaming community to frame the conversation with appropriate nuance. All of them cited Gamergate’ s violent male entitlement and the effect that its subsequent bleed into the larger alt-right movement’s misogyny and white supremacy have had on mainstream culture at large.

“The framing of that rhetoric that began in Gamergate as part of the ‘low’ culture of niche internet forums became part of the mainstream political discourse,” criminologist Phillips pointed out. “The expression of their misogyny and the notion of being pushed out of their white male-dominated space was a microcosm of what was to come. We’re talking about 8chan now, but [the growth of the alt-right] was fueled by gaming culture.” She points to Gamergate as an example of the complicated interplay between gaming culture, online communities full of toxic, violent rhetoric, and the rise of online extremism that’s increasingly moving offline.

Gaming sociologist Cross agreed. “At this moment, there is urgent need to shine a light on video game culture , the fan spaces that have been infiltrated by white supremacists looking to recruit that minority of gamers who rage against ‘political correctness,’” she told me.

“We treat video games as unreal, as unserious play, and that creates a shadow over gaming forums and fan communities that has allowed toxicity to take root. It’s also allowed neo-Nazis to operate mostly unseen. That is what needs to change.”

The resulting shadow over gaming has spread far and wide — and found violent echoes in the rhetoric of Trump himself . “Look at what the person in the very highest office of the US is cultivating,” Cypheroftyr said. “Toxic masculinity, this idea that men, especially white men, have been fed that they’re losing ‘their’ country.”

“While video games do not influence us in a monkey-see-monkey-do manner, they do, like all media, shape how we see the world,” Cross argues. “Republicans, in broaching that possibility, open themselves up to the critique that their leader, who makes frequent use of both old media and social media, might also be influential in a toxic way.”

And this, ultimately, may be why the current debate around video games and violence feels particularly intense: The extremes of toxic gaming culture are fueling the attitudes of toxic alt-right culture , which in turn fuels the rhetoric of President Trump and many other right-wing politicians — the same rhetoric that many white supremacist mass shooters are using to justify their atrocities.

So when Trump rails against violence in video games, as he’s now done multiple times , he’s protesting a fictionalized version of the real-life violence that his own rhetoric seems to tacitly encourage. If we are to accept the argument that media violence as represented by games is capable of bringing about real-world violence, then surely no media influence is more powerful or full of dangerous potential than that wielded by the president of the United States.

In 2018, Vice’s gaming vertical Waypoint devoted a week to “ guns and games ”; in a moving piece outlining the intent of the project, editor Austin Walker observed that unlike real-world violence, “in big-budget action games, and especially games that give the player guns and plentiful ammunition, violence is cheap and endlessly repeatable.”

Yet now, barely a year later, mass shootings and other incidents of real-world violence have also begun to seem endlessly repeatable. Perhaps that is why, at last, the urgency of shifting our cultural focus from fixing violence in games to fixing violence in the real world feels like it is finally outstripping the incessant debate.

Will you help keep Vox free for all?

At Vox, we believe that clarity is power, and that power shouldn’t only be available to those who can afford to pay. That’s why we keep our work free. Millions rely on Vox’s clear, high-quality journalism to understand the forces shaping today’s world. Support our mission and help keep Vox free for all by making a financial contribution to Vox today.

We accept credit card, Apple Pay, and Google Pay. You can also contribute via

The Western visuals of Beyoncé’s Cowboy Carter, decoded

The talented mr. ripley is a perfect striver gothic. the netflix adaptation is lifeless., why march madness is all about caitlin clark, sign up for the newsletter today, explained, thanks for signing up.

Check your inbox for a welcome email.

Oops. Something went wrong. Please enter a valid email and try again.

An official website of the United States government

The .gov means it’s official. Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

The site is secure. The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

• Publications
• Account settings

Preview improvements coming to the PMC website in October 2024. Learn More or Try it out now .

• Advanced Search
• Journal List
• Wiley-Blackwell Online Open

The contagious impact of playing violent video games on aggression: Longitudinal evidence

Tobias greitemeyer.

1 Department of Psychology, University of Innsbruck, Innsbruck Austria

Meta‐analyses have shown that violent video game play increases aggression in the player. The present research suggests that violent video game play also affects individuals with whom the player is connected. A longitudinal study ( N  = 980) asked participants to report on their amount of violent video game play and level of aggression as well as how they perceive their friends and examined the association between the participant's aggression and their friends’ amount of violent video game play. As hypothesized, friends’ amount of violent video game play at Time 1 was associated with the participant's aggression at Time 2 even when controlling for the impact of the participant's aggression at Time 1. Mediation analyses showed that friends’ aggression at Time 1 accounted for the impact of friends’ amount of violent video game play at Time 1 on the participant's aggression at Time 2. These findings suggest that increased aggression in video game players has an impact on the player's social network.

1. INTRODUCTION

Given its widespread use, the public and psychologists alike are concerned about the impact of violent video game play. In fact, a great number of studies have addressed the effects of exposure to violent video games (where the main goal is to harm other game characters) on aggression and aggression‐related variables. Meta‐analyses have shown that playing violent video games is associated with increased aggression in the player (Anderson et al., 2010 ; Greitemeyer & Mügge, 2014 ). The present longitudinal study examines the idea that violent video game play also affects the player's social network, suggesting that concern about the harmful effects of playing violent video games on a societal level is even more warranted.

1.1. Theoretical perspective

When explaining the effects of playing violent video games, researchers often refer to the General Aggression Model (GAM) proposed by Anderson & Bushman ( 2002 ). According to this theoretical model, person and situation variables (sometimes interactively) may affect a person's internal state, consisting of cognition, affect, and arousal. This internal state then affects how events are perceived and interpreted. Based on this decision process, the person behaves more or less aggressively in a social encounter. For example, playing violent video games is assumed to increase aggressive cognition and affect, which in turn results in behavioral aggression. An extension of this model further assumes that increased aggression due to previous violent video game play may instigate an aggression escalation cycle in that the victim also behaves aggressively (cf. Anderson & Bushman, 2018 , Figure 5). The present research tested key predictions derived from the GAM and its extension, that (a) violent video game play is associated with increased aggression in the player and that (b) individuals who are connected to the player will also become more aggressive.

1.2. Effects of violent video game play on aggression

The relationship between violent video game play and aggression has been examined in studies employing cross‐sectional, longitudinal, and experimental designs. Cross‐sectional correlational studies typically show a positive relationship between the amount of violent video game play and aggression in real‐world contexts (e.g., Gentile, Lynch, Linder, & Walsh, 2004 ; Krahé & Möller, 2004 ). Several longitudinal studies have been conducted, showing that habitual violent video game play predicts later aggression even after controlling for initial aggressiveness (e.g., Anderson, Buckley, & Carnagey, 2008 ). That violent video game play has a causal impact on aggression and related information processing has been demonstrated by experimental work (e.g., Anderson & Carnagey, 2009 ; Gabbiadini & Riva, 2018 ). Finally, meta‐analyses corroborated that violent video game play significantly increases aggressive thoughts, hostile affect, and aggressive behavior (Anderson et al., 2010 ; Greitemeyer & Mügge, 2014 ). Some studies failed to find significant effects (e.g., McCarthy, Coley, Wagner, Zengel, & Basham, 2016 ). However, given that the typical effect of violent video games on aggression is not large, it is to be expected that not all studies reveal significant effects.

1.3. The contagious effects of aggression

Abundant evidence has been collected that aggression and violence can be contagious (Dishion, & Tipsord, 2011 ; Huesmann, 2012 ; Jung, Busching, & Krahé, 2019 ). Indeed, the best predictor of (retaliatory) aggression is arguably previous violent victimization (Anderson et al., 2008 ; Goldstein, Davis, & Herman, 1975 ). However, even the observation of violence can lead to increased violence in the future (Widom, 1989 ). Overall, it is a well‐known finding that aggression begets further aggression. Given that violent video game play increases aggression, it thus may well be that this increased aggression then has an impact on people with whom the player is connected.

Correlational research provides initial evidence for the idea that the level of people's aggression is indeed associated with how often their friends play violent video games (Greitemeyer, 2018 ). In particular, participants who did not play violent video games were more aggressive the more their friends played violent video games. However, due to the cross‐sectional design, no conclusions about the direction of the effect are possible. It may be that violent video game players influence their friends (social influence), but it is also conceivable that similar people attract each other (homophily) or that there is some shared environmental factor that influences the behavior of both the players and their friends (confounding). That is, it is unclear whether indeed aggression due to playing violent video games spreads or whether the effect is reversed, such that aggressive people are prone to befriend others who are attracted to violent video game play. Moreover, it is possible that some third variable affected both, participants’ reported aggression and their friends’ amount of violent video game play. There is also the possibility that people are unsure about the extent to which their friends play violent video games. In this case, they may perceive their friends as behaving aggressively and then (wrongly) infer that the friends play violent video games. To disentangle these possibilities and to show that the effect of violent video game play (i.e., increased aggression in the player) indeed has an impact on the player's social network, relationships among variables have to be assessed over time while covarying prior aggression (Bond & Bushman, 2017 ; Christakis & Fowler, 2013 ).

Verheijen, Burk, Stoltz, van den Berg, and Cillessen ( 2018 ) tested the idea that players of violent video games have a long‐term impact on their social network. These authors found that participants’ exposure to violent video games increased their friend's aggressive behavior 1 year later. However, given that the authors did not examine whether the violent video game player's increased aggression accounts for the impact on their friend's aggressive behavior, it is unknown whether violent video game play indeed instigates an aggression cycle. For example, players of violent video games may influence their friends so that these friends will also play violent video games. Any increases in aggression could then be an effect of the friends playing violent video games on their own.

1.4. The present research

The present study examines the longitudinal association between the participant's aggression and their friends’ amount of violent video game play, employing an egocentric networking approach (Stark & Krosnick, 2017 ). In egocentric networking analyses, participants provide self‐reports but also report on how they perceive their friends. In the following, and in line with Greitemeyer ( 2018 ), the friends were treated as the players and the participant was treated as their friends’ social network. Please note that ties between the participant's friends (i.e., whether friends also know each other) were not assessed (Greitemeyer, 2018 ; Mötteli & Dohle, 2019 ), because this information was not needed for testing the hypothesis that participants become more aggressive if their friends play violent video games. It was expected that friends’ amount of violent video game play at Time 1 would predict the participant's aggression at Time 2 even when controlling for the impact of the participant's aggression and amount of violent video game play at Time 1. It was further examined whether friends’ aggression at Time 1 would account for the impact of friends’ amount of violent video game play at Time 1 on the participant's aggression at Time 2. Such findings would provide suggestive evidence that violent video game play may instigate an aggression cycle. The study received ethical approval from the Internal Review Board for Ethical Questions by the Scientific Ethical Committee of the University of Innsbruck. The data and materials are openly accessible at https://osf.io/jp8ew/ .

2.1. Participants

Participants were citizens of the U.S. who took part on Amazon Mechanical Turk. Because it was unknown how many of the participants will complete both questionnaires, no power analyses were conducted a priori but a large number of participants was run. At Time 1, there were 2,502 participants (1,376 females, 1,126 males; mean age = 35.7 years, SD =  11.8). Of these, 980 participants (522 females, 458 males; mean age = 38.9 years, SD =  12.5) completed the questionnaire at Time 2. Time 1 and Time 2 were 6 months apart. There were no data exclusions, and all participants were run before any analyses were performed. The questionnaire included some further questions (e.g., participant's perceived deprivation) that are not relevant for the present purpose and are reported elsewhere (Greitemeyer & Sagioglou, 2018 ). 1 Given that the questionnaire was relatively short, no attention checks were employed.

2.2. Procedure and measures

Procedure and measures were very similar to Greitemeyer ( 2018 ), with the main difference that individuals participated at two time points (instead of one). After providing demographics, self‐reported aggressive behavior was assessed. As in previous research (e.g., Krahé & Möller, 2010 ), participants indicated for 10 items how often they had shown the respective behavior in the past 6 months. Sample items are: “I have pushed another person” and “I have spread gossip about people I don't like” (5 items each address physical aggression and relational aggression, respectively). All items were rated on a scale from 1 ( never ) to 5 ( very often ), and scores were averaged. Participants were then asked about their amount of violent video game play, employing one item: “How often do you play violent video games (where the goal is to harm other game characters)?” (1 =  never to 7 =  very often ).

Afterwards, participants learned that they will be asked questions about people they feel closest to. These may be friends, coworkers, neighbors, relatives. They should answer questions for three contacts with whom they talked about important matters in the last few months. For each friend, they reported the level of aggression (αs between = 0.90 and 0.91) and the amount of violent video game play, employing the same questions as for themselves. Responses to the three friends were then averaged. Finally, participants were thanked and asked what they thought this experiment was trying to study, but none noted the hypothesis that their friend's amount of violent video game play would affect their own level of aggression. At Time 2, the same questions were employed. Reliabilities for how participants perceived the level of aggression for each friend were between 0.89 and 0.90.

Descriptive statistics, intercorrelations, and internal consistencies of all measures are shown in Table ​ Table1 1 .

Means, standard deviations, and bivariate correlations

Note : For Time 1, N  = 2,502; for Time 2, N  = 980. All correlation coefficients: p  < .001. Where applicable, α reliabilities are presented along the diagonal.

3.1. Time 1 ( N  = 2,502)

The relationship between the amount of violent video game play and reported aggression was significant, both for the participant and the friends. That is, violent video game play was associated with increased aggression in the player and participants perceived their friends who play more violent video games to be more aggressive than their less‐playing friends. Participant's and friends’ amount of violent video game play as well as their level of reported aggression, respectively, were also positively associated, indicating that participants perceived their friends to be similar to them. Most importantly, participant's aggression was significantly associated with friends’ amount of violent video game play. 2

It was then examined whether friends’ amount of violent video game play is still associated with the participant's aggression when controlling for the participant's amount of violent video game play. Participant sex (coded 1 = male, 2 = female) and age were included as covariates. In fact, a bootstrapping analysis showed that the impact of friends’ amount of violent video game play remained significant (point estimate = 0.08, SE  = 0.02, t  = 4.72, p  < .001, 95% confidence interval [CI] = [0.05, 0.11]). Participant's amount of violent video game play (point estimate = 0.03, SE  = 0.01, t  = 2.18, p  = .029, 95% CI = [0.00, 0.05]) and the interaction were also significant (point estimate = −0.01, SE  = 0.00, t  = 2.41, p  = .016, 95% CI = [−0.02, −0.00]). At low levels of the participant's amount of violent video game play (− 1 SD, equals that the participant does not play violent video games in the present data set), friends’ amount of violent video game play was associated with the participant's aggression (point estimate = 0.07, SE  = 0.01, t  = 5.06, p  < .001, 95% CI = [0.04, 0.10]). At high levels of the participant's amount of violent video game play ( + 1 SD), friends’ amount of violent video game play was also associated with the participant's aggression (point estimate = 0.03, SE  = 0.01, t  = 3.14, p  = .002, 95% CI = [0.01, 0.06]), but the effect was less pronounced. Participants were thus most strongly affected by whether their social network plays violent video games when they do not play violent video games themselves (Figure ​ (Figure1). 1 ). Participant sex was not significantly associated with the participant's aggression (point estimate = −0.04, SE  = 0.02, t  = 1.95, p  = .052, 95% CI = [−0.09, 0.00]), whereas age was (point estimate = −0.01, SE  = 0.00, t  = 7.84, p  < .001, 95% CI = [−0.009, −0.005]).

Simple slopes of the interactive effect of friends’ amount of violent video game play and the participant's amount of violent video game play on the participant's aggression, controlling for participant sex and age (Time 1, N  = 2,502)

3.2. Time 1 and Time 2 ( N  = 980)

To examine the impact of friends’ amount of violent video game play on the participant's aggression over time, a cross‐lagged regression analysis was performed on the data. Participant's amount of violent video game play, friends’ amount of violent video game play, participant's aggression at Time 1, as well as participant sex and age were used as predictors for participant's aggression at Time 2. The overall regression was significant, F (5,974) = 68.92, R 2  = 0.26, p  < .001. Most importantly, friends’ amount of violent video game play at Time 1 significantly predicted participant's aggression at Time 2, t  = 2.60, β  = .09, 95% CI = (0.02, 0.16), p  = .009. Participant's aggression showed high stability, t  = 16.77, β  = .48, 95% CI = (0.42, 0.53), p  < .001, whereas the participant's amount of violent video game play at Time 1 did not significantly predict the participant's aggression at Time 2, t  = 1.77, β  = −.07, 95% CI = (− 0.14, 0.01), p  = .077 (Figure ​ (Figure2 2 ). 3 , 4 Participant sex also received a significant regression weight, t  = 2.08, β  = −.06, 95% CI = (−0.12, −0.00), p  = .038, whereas age did not, t  = 1.93, β  = −.06, 95% CI = (−0.12, 0.00), p  = .054. The reverse effect that the participant's aggression at Time 1 predicts their friends’ amount of violent video game play at Time 2 when controlling for the participant's amount of violent video game play and friends’ amount of violent video game play at Time 1, as well as participant sex and age, was not significant, t  = 0.67, β  = .02, 95% CI = (−0.03, 0.06), p  = .504.

Participant's aggression at Time 2 simultaneously predicted by friends’ amount of violent video game play, participant's aggression, and participant's amount of violent video game play at Time 1. Participant sex and age were controlled for, but were not included in the figure (see the main text for the impact of participant sex and age). * p  < .01, ** p  < .001 ( N  = 980)

Finally, it was examined whether the impact of friends’ amount of violent video game play at Time 1 on the participant's aggression at Time 2 would be mediated by friends’ level of aggression at Time 1 (while controlling for the participant's aggression and amount of violent video game play at Time 1 as well as participant sex and age). A bootstrapping analysis (with 5.000 iterations) showed that the impact of friends’ level of aggression at Time 1 on the participant's aggression at Time 2 was significant (point estimate = 0.16, SE  = 0.04, t  = 4.28, p  < .001, 95% CI = [0.09, 0.23]). Participant's aggression at Time 1 was also a significant predictor (point estimate = 0.34, SE  = 0.03, t  = 10.19, p  < .001, 95% CI = [0.27, 0.40]). Friends’ amount of violent video game play at Time 1 (point estimate = 0.03, SE  = 0.01, t  = 1.82, p  = .069, 95% CI = [−0.00, 0.05]) and participant's amount of violent video game play at Time 1 (point estimate = −0.01, SE  = 0.01, t  = 1.65, p  = .099, 95% CI = [−0.03, 0.00]) were not significant predictors. Participant sex significantly predicted the participant's aggression at Time 2 (point estimate = −0.06, SE  = 0.03, t  = 2.31, p  = .021, 95% CI = [−0.11, −0.01]), whereas age did not (point estimate = −0.00, SE  = 0.00, t  = 1.90, p  = .058, 95% CI = [−0.00, 0.00]). The indirect effect was significantly different from zero (point estimate = 0.01, 95% CI = [.00, 0.02]), suggesting that participants are more aggressive if their friends play violent video games for the reason that these friends are more aggressive. Figure ​ Figure3 3 displays a simplified version of this mediation effect, based on regression coefficients and without controlling for the participant's aggression at Time 1, the participant's amount of violent video game play at Time 1, participant sex, and age.

Mediation of the impact of friends’ violent video game exposure (VVE) at Time 1 on the participant's aggression at Time 2 by friends’ aggression at Time 1. All paths are significant. β * = the coefficient from friends’ VVE at Time 1 to the participant's aggression at Time 2 when controlling for friends’ aggression at Time 1 ( N  = 980)

4. DISCUSSION

Violent video games have an impact on the player's aggression (Anderson et al., 2010 ; Greitemeyer & Mügge, 2014 ), but—as the present study shows—they also increase aggression in the player's social network. In particular, participants who do not play violent video games reported to be more aggressive the more their friends play violent video games. Mediation analyses showed that the increased aggression in the friends accounted for the relationship between friends’ amount of violent video game play and the participant's aggression. Because changes in aggression over time were assessed, the present study provides evidence for the hypothesized effect that violent video game play is associated with increased aggression in the player, which then instigates aggression in their social network. Importantly, the impact of the participant's amount of violent video game play was controlled for, indicating that the relationship between friends’ amount of violent video game play and the participant's aggression is not due to the friends being similar to the participants. Moreover, the reverse effect that aggressive people will become attracted to others who play violent video games was not reliable. The present research thus documents the directional effects that violent video games is associated with increased aggression in the player and that this increased aggression then has an impact on people with whom the player is connected.

Overall, the present study provides comprehensive support for key hypotheses derived from the GAM and its extension (Anderson & Bushman, 2018 ). It shows that violent video game play is associated with increased aggression in the player and it documents that others who are connected to players might be also affected even when controlling for their own amount of violent video game play. To the best of my knowledge, this study is the first that shows that because violent video game players are more aggressive their friends will become aggressive, too. Previous research either employed a cross‐sectional design and thus could not address the direction of the effect (Greitemeyer, 2018 ) or did not examine whether the effect of violent video game play (i.e., increased aggression) indeed spreads (Verheijen et al., 2018 ). As proposed by the GAM and its extension (Anderson & Bushman, 2018 ), increased aggression in violent video game players appears to instigate an aggression escalation cycle (cf. Anderson et al., 2008 ).

It is noteworthy, however, that the longitudinal effect of the participant's amount of violent video game play at Time 1 on the participant's aggression at Time 2 was not reliable. Hence, although there were significant correlations between participants’ aggression and their violent video game use at both time points, the present study does not show that repeatedly playing violent video games leads to long‐term changes in aggression. However, a recent meta‐analysis of the long‐term effects of playing violent video games confirmed that violent video game play does increase physical aggression over time (Prescott, Sargent, & Hull, 2018 ), although the effect size was relatively small ( β  = 0.11) and thus single studies that produce nonsignificant results are to be expected. Importantly, in the present study, a single‐item measure of violent video game play was employed. In contrast, previous research on the relationship between violent video game play and the player's aggression has often employed multi‐item measurement scales that are typically more reliable and precise (for an overview, Busching et al., 2015 ). Hence, it may well be that due to the limitations of the single‐item measure of the participant's amount of violent video game play the relationship between participants’ violent game play and their aggressive behavior was artificially reduced.

Even though the longitudinal design allows ruling out a host of alternative explanations for the impact of violent video games on the player's social network, causality can only inferred by using an experimental design. Future research may thus randomly assign participants to play a violent or nonviolent video game (players) and assesses their aggression against new participants (partners). It can be expected that the partners suffer more aggression when the player had played a violent, compared to a nonviolent, video game. Afterwards, it could be tested whether the partner of a violent video game player is more aggressive than a partner of a nonviolent video game player. Given that the partner is not exposed to any video games, firm causal conclusions could be drawn that violent video game play affects aggression in people who are connected to violent video game players. It could be also tested whether the partner of a violent video game player would not only be more likely to retaliate against the player, but also against a third party. In fact, previous research into displaced aggression has shown that people may react aggressively against a target that is innocent of any wrongdoing after they have been provoked by another person (Marcus‐Newhall, Pedersen, Carlson, & Miller, 2000 ). It may thus well be that the effect of playing violent video games spreads in social networks and that even people who are only indirectly linked to violent video game players are affected.

An important limitation of the present egocentric network data is the reliance on the participant's perception of their social network, leaving the possibility that participants did not accurately perceive their friends. It is noteworthy that participants perceived their friends to be highly similar to them. In this regard, it is important to keep in mind that participants always provided self‐ratings first, followed by perceptions of their friends. It is thus conceivable that participants used their self‐ratings as anchors for the perceptions of their friends. Such a tendency, however, would reduce the unique effect of friends’ amount of violent video game play on the participant's aggression when controlling for the participant's amount of violent video game play. The finding that participants in particular who do not play violent video games reported to be more aggressive if their friends play violent video games also suggests that the impact of violent video games on the player's social network is not due to participants providing both self‐reports and how they perceive their friends. Finally, rather than by their friends’ objective qualities, people's behavior should be more likely to be affected by their subjective perceptions of their friends.

As noted in the introduction, participants may not be aware of the extent to which their friends play violent video games and hence used the perception of how aggressive their friends are as an anchor for estimating their friends’ amount of violent video game play. Importantly, however, the participant's aggression at Time 2 was significantly predicted by friends’ amount of violent video game play at Time 1 even when controlling for friends’ level of aggression at Time 1 (see Figure ​ Figure3). 3 ). Moreover, whereas aggression might be used for estimating violent video game exposure of the friends, participants should be well aware of the extent to which they play violent video games so that anchoring effects for participant's self‐reports are unlikely. However, given that it cannot be completely ruled out that the correlation between violent game play of friends at Time 1 and aggressive behavior of participants at Time 2 reflects a pseudocorrelation that is determined by the correlation between aggressive behavior of friends at Time 1 and aggressive behavior of the participant at Time 2, future research that employs sociocentric network analyses where information about the friends is provided by the friends themselves would be informative.

Another limitation is the employment of self‐report measures to assess aggressive behavior. Self‐report measures are quite transparent, so participants may have rated themselves more favorably than is actually warranted. In fact, mean scores of reported aggressive behavior were quite low. This reduced variance, however, typically diminishes associations with other constructs. In any case, observing how actual aggressive behavior is influenced by the social network's violent video game play would be an important endeavor for future work. It also has to be acknowledged that some participants may have reported on different friends at Time 1 and Time 2. Future research would be welcome that ensures that participants consider the same friends at different time points.

Future research may also shed some further light on the psychological processes. In the present study, the violent video game players’ higher levels of aggression accounted for the relationship between their amount of violent video game play and the participants’ reported aggression. It would be interesting to examine why the players’ aggression influences the aggression level of their social network. One possibility is that witnessing increased aggression by others (who play violent video games) leads to greater acceptance of norms condoning aggression, which are known to be an antecedent of aggressive behavior (Huesmann & Guerra, 1997 ). After all, if others behave aggressively, why should one refrain from engaging in the same behavior.

Another limitation of the present work is that it was not assessed how participants and their friends play violent video games. A recent survey (Lenhart, Smith, Anderson, Duggan, & Perrin, 2015 ) showed that many video game users play video games together with their friends, either cooperatively or competitively. This is insofar noteworthy as there might be some overlap between participants’ and their friends’ violent video game play. Moreover, cooperative video games have been shown to increase prosocial tendencies (Greitemeyer, 2013 ; Greitemeyer & Cox, 2013 ; but see Verheijen, Stoltz, van den Berg, & Cillessen, 2019 ) and decrease aggression (Velez, Greitemeyer, Whitaker, Ewoldsen, & Bushman, 2016 ). In contrast, competitive video game play increases aggressive affect and behavior (e.g., Adachi & Willoughby, 2016 ). Hence, future research should examine more closely whether participants play violent video games on their own, competitively, or cooperatively. The latter may show some positive effects of video game play, both on the player and the player's friends, whereas opposing effects should be found for competitive video games.

To obtain high statistical power and thus to increase the probability to detect significant effects, data were collected via an online survey. The current sample was drawn from the MTurk population (for a review of the trend to rely on MTurk samples in social and personality psychology, see Anderson et al., 2019 ). Samples drawn from MTurk are not demographically representative of the U.S. population as a whole. For example, MTurk samples are disproportionally young and female and they are better educated but tend to be unemployed (for a review, Keith, Tay, & Harms, 2017 ). On the other hand, MTurk samples are more representative of the U.S. population than are college student samples (Paolacci & Chandler, 2014 ) and the pool of participants is geographically diverse. Moreover, MTurk participants appear to be more attentive to survey instructions than are undergraduate students (Hauser & Schwarz, 2016 ). Nevertheless, future research on the impact of violent video game play on the player's social network that employs other samples would improve the generalizability of the present findings.

In conclusion, violent video game play is not only associated with increased aggression in the player but also in the player's social network. In fact, increased aggression due to violent video game play appears to instigate further aggression in the player's social network. This study thus provides suggestive evidence that not only players of violent video games are more aggressive, but also individuals become more aggressive who do not play violent video games themselves but are connected to others who do play.

Greitemeyer T. The contagious impact of playing violent video games on aggression: Longitudinal evidence . Aggressive Behavior . 2019; 45 :635–642. 10.1002/ab.21857 [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]

1 Participant's perceived deprivation was positively related to both violent video game exposure, r (2,502) = 0.08, p  < .001, and reported aggression, r (2,502) = 0.14, p  < .001. However, the relationship between violent video game exposure and reported aggression, r (2,502) = 0.15, p  < .001, was relatively unaffected when controlling for perceived deprivation, r (2,499) = 0.14, p  < .001.

2 Given that the measures of violent video game exposure and aggressive behavior violated the normal distribution, Spearman's ρ coefficients were also calculated. However, the pattern of finding was very similar (e.g., the crucial relationship between the participant's aggression and friends’ amount of violent video game play was 0.18 [Pearson] and 0.17 [Spearman]). All these analyses can be obtained from the author upon request.

3 When dropping friends’ amount of violent video game play from the analysis, the participant's amount of violent video game play at Time 1 still did not predict participant's aggression at Time 2, t  = 0.44, β  = −.01, 95% CI = (− 0.02, 0.01), p  = .657 (when controlling for participant's aggression at Time 1, participant sex, and age).

4 Given that violent video games primarily model physical aggression, violent video games should have a stronger effect on the player's physical aggression than on other types of aggression. In fact, the impact of the participant's amount of violent video game play at Time 1 on the participant's physical aggression at Time 2, t  = 1.49, β  = .04, 95% CI = (− 0.00, 0.02), p  = .136 (when controlling for the participant's physical aggression at Time 1), was more pronounced than the impact on the participant's relational aggression at Time 2, t  = 0.52, β  = .02, 95% CI = (− 0.01, 0.02), p  = .603 (when controlling for the participant's relational aggression at Time 1), but both effects were not significant.

• Adachi, P. J. C. , & Willoughby, T. (2016). The longitudinal association between competitive video game play and aggression among adolescents and young adults . Child Development , 87 , 1877–1892. 10.1111/cdev.12556 [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Anderson, C. A. , Allen, J. J. , Plante, C. , Quigley‐McBride, A. , Lovett, A. , & Rokkum, J. N. (2019). The MTurkification of social and personality psychology . Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin , 45 , 842–850. 10.1177%2F0146167218798821 [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Anderson, C. A. , Buckley, K. E. , & Carnagey, N. L. (2008). Creating your own hostile environment: A laboratory examination of trait aggressiveness and the violence escalation cycle . Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin , 34 , 462–473. 10.1177/0146167207311282 [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Anderson, C. A. , & Bushman, B. J. (2002). Human aggression . Annual Review of Psychology , 53 , 27–51. 10.1146/annurev.psych.53.100901.135231 [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Anderson, C. A. , & Bushman, B. J. (2018). Media violence and the General Aggression Model . Journal of Social Issues , 74 , 386–413. 10.1111/josi.12275 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Anderson, C. A. , & Carnagey, N. L. (2009). Causal effects of violent sports video games on aggression: Is it competitiveness or violent content? Journal of Experimental Social Psychology , 45 , 731–739. 10.1016/j.jesp.2009.04.019 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Anderson, C. A. , Sakamoto, A. , Gentile, D. A. , Ihori, N. , Shibuya, A. , Yukawa, S. , … Kobayashi, K. (2008). Longitudinal effects of violent video games on aggression in Japan and the United States . Pediatrics , 122 , e1067–e1072. 10.1542/peds.2008-1425 [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Anderson, C. A. , Shibuya, A. , Ihori, N. , Swing, E. L. , Bushman, B. J. , Sakamoto, A. , … Saleem, M. (2010). Violent video game effects on aggression, empathy, and prosocial behavior in Eastern and Western countries . Psychological Bulletin , 136 , 151–173. 10.1037/a0018251 [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Bond, R. M. , & Bushman, B. J. (2017). The contagious spread of violence among US adolescents through social networks . American Journal of Public Health , 107 , 288–294. 10.2105/AJPH.2016.303550 [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Busching, R. , Gentile, D. A. , Krahé, B. , Möller, I. , Khoo, A. , Walsh, D. A. , & Anderson, C. A. (2015). Testing the reliability and validity of different measures of violent video game use in the United States, Singapore, and Germany . Psychology of Popular Media Culture , 4 , 97–111. [ Google Scholar ]
• Christakis, N. A. , & Fowler, J. H. (2013). Social contagion theory: Examining dynamic social networks and human behavior . Statistics in Medicine , 32 , 556–577. 10.1002/sim.5408 [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Dishion, T. J. , & Tipsord, J. M. (2011). Peer contagion in child and adolescent social and emotional development . Annual Review of Psychology , 62 , 189–214. 10.1146/annurev.psych.093008.100412 [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Gabbiadini, A. , & Riva, P. (2018). The lone gamer: Social exclusion predicts violent video game preferences and fuels aggressive inclinations in adolescent players . Aggressive Behavior , 44 , 113–124. 10.1002/ab.21735 [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Gentile, D. A. , Lynch, P. J. , Linder, J. R. , & Walsh, D. A. (2004). The effects of violent video game habits on adolescent hostility, aggressive behaviors, and school performance . Journal of Adolescence , 27 , 5–22. 10.1016/j.adolescence.2003.10.002 [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Goldstein, J. H. , Davis, R. W. , & Herman, D. (1975). Escalation of aggression: Experimental studies . Journal of Personality and Social Psychology , 31 , 162–170. 10.1037/h0076241 [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Greitemeyer, T. (2013). Playing video games cooperatively increases empathic concern . Social Psychology , 44 , 408–413. 10.1027/1864-9335/a000154 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Greitemeyer, T. (2018). The spreading impact of playing violent video games on aggression . Computers in Human Behavior , 80 , 216–219. 10.1016/j.chb.2017.11.022 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Greitemeyer, T. , & Cox, C. (2013). There's no “I” in team: Effects of cooperative video games on cooperative behavior: Video games and cooperation . European Journal of Social Psychology , 43 , 224–228. 10.1002/ejsp.1940 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Greitemeyer, T. , & Mügge, D. O. (2014). Video games do affect social outcomes: A meta‐analytic review of the effects of violent and prosocial video game play . Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin , 40 , 578–589. 10.1177/0146167213520459 [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Greitemeyer, T. , & Sagioglou, C. (2018). The impact of personal relative deprivation on aggression over time . The Journal of Social Psychology , 3–7. 10.1080/00224545.2018.1549013 [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Hauser, D. J. , & Schwarz, N. (2016). Attentive Turkers: MTurk participants perform better on online attention checks than do subject pool participants . Behavior Research Methods , 48 , 400–407. 10.3758/s13428-015-0578-z [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Huesmann, L. R. (2012). The contagion of violence: The extent, the processes, and the outcomes. Social and economic costs of violence: Workshop summary (pp. 63–69). Washington, DC: IOM (Institute of Medicine) and NRC (National, Research Council). [ Google Scholar ]
• Huesmann, L. R. , & Guerra, N. G. (1997). Children's normative beliefs about aggression and aggressive behavior . Journal of Personality and Social Psychology , 72 , 408–419. 10.1037/0022-3514.72.2.408 [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Jung, J. , Busching, R. , & Krahé, B. (2019). Catching aggression from one's peers: A longitudinal and multilevel analysis . Social and Personality Psychology Compass , 13 , e12433 10.1111/spc3.12433 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Keith, M. G. , Tay, L. , & Harms, P. D. (2017). Systems perspective of Amazon Mechanical Turk for organizational research: Review and recommendations . Frontiers in Psychology , 8 , 1359 10.3389/fpsyg.2017.01359 [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Krahé, B. , & Möller, I. (2004). Playing violent electronic games, hostile attributional style, and aggression‐related norms in German adolescents . Journal of Adolescence , 27 , 53–69. 10.1016/j.adolescence.2003.10.006 [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Krahé, B. , & Möller, I. (2010). Longitudinal effects of media violence on aggression and empathy among German adolescents . Journal of Applied Developmental Psychology , 31 , 401–409. 10.1016/j.appdev.2010.07.003 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Lenhart, A. , Smith, A. , Anderson, M. , Duggan, M. , & Perrin, A. (2015). Teens, technology and friendships Pew Internet and American Life Project. Retrieved from http://www.pewinternet.org/2015/08/06/teens-technology-and-friendships/
• Marcus‐Newhall, A. , Pedersen, W. C. , Carlson, M. , & Miller, N. (2000). Displaced aggression is alive and well: A meta‐analytic review . Journal of Personality and Social Psychology , 78 , 670–689. 10.1037/0022-3514.78.4.670 [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• McCarthy, R. J. , Coley, S. L. , Wagner, M. F. , Zengel, B. , & Basham, A. (2016). Does playing video games with violent content temporarily increase aggressive inclinations? A pre‐registered experimental study . Journal of Experimental Social Psychology , 67 , 13–19. 10.1016/j.jesp.2015.10.009 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Mötteli, S. , & Dohle, S. (2019). Egocentric social network correlates of physical activity . Journal of Sport and Health Science , 2–8. 10.1016/j.jshs.2017.01.002 [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Paolacci, G. , & Chandler, J. (2014). Inside the Turk: Understanding Mechanical Turk as a participant pool . Current Directions in Psychological Science , 23 , 184–188. 10.1177/0963721414531598 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Prescott, A. T. , Sargent, J. D. , & Hull, J. G. (2018). Metaanalysis of the relationship between violent video game play and physical aggression over time . Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences , 115 , 9882–9888. 10.1073/pnas.1611617114 [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Stark, T. H. , & Krosnick, J. A. (2017). GENSI: A new graphical tool to collect ego‐centered network data . Social Networks , 48 , 36–45. 10.1016/j.socnet.2016.07.007 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Velez, J. A. , Greitemeyer, T. , Whitaker, J. L. , Ewoldsen, D. R. , & Bushman, B. J. (2016). Violent video games and reciprocity: The attenuating effects of cooperative game play on subsequent aggression . Communication Research , 43 , 447–467. 10.1177/0093650214552519 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Verheijen, G. P. , Burk, W. J. , Stoltz, S. E. M. J. , van den Berg, Y. H. M. , & Cillessen, A. H. N. (2018). Friendly fire: Longitudinal effects of exposure to violent video games on aggressive behavior in adolescent friendship dyads . Aggressive Behavior , 44 , 257–267. 10.1002/ab.21748 [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Verheijen, G. P. , Stoltz, S. E. M. J. , van den Berg, Y. H. M. , & Cillessen, A. H. N. (2019). The influence of competitive and cooperative video games on behavior during play and friendship quality in adolescence . Computers in Human Behavior , 91 , 297–304. 10.1016/j.chb.2018.10.023 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Widom, C. S. (1989). Does violence beget violence? A critical examination of the literature . Psychological Bulletin , 106 , 3–28. 10.1037/0033-2909.115.2.287 [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]

• International edition
• Australia edition
• Europe edition

Playing video games doesn't lead to violent behaviour, study shows

Analysis of 28 global studies dating back to 2008 found a minuscule positive correlation

Video games do not lead to violence or aggression, according to a reanalysis of data gathered from more than 21,000 young people around the world.

The researchers, led by Aaron Drummond from New Zealand’s Massey University, re-examined 28 studies from previous years that looked at the link between aggressive behaviour and video gaming, a method known as a meta-analysis.

The new report, published in the journal Royal Society Open Science on Wednesday, found that, when bundled together, the studies showed a statistically significant but minuscule positive correlation between gaming and aggression, below the threshold required to count as even a “small effect”.

“Thus, current research is unable to support the hypothesis that violent video games have a meaningful long-term predictive impact on youth aggression,” the report said.

Between them, the various studies included in the research dated back to 2008, and had reported a range of effects, including a small positive correlation between violence and video-game use in around a quarter of them and no overall conclusion in most of the rest, with one 2011 study finding a negative correlation.

One common argument for a negative effect of gaming is that small harms can accumulate over time: if a player ends every game slightly more aggressive then, over the long term, that might add up to a meaningful change in temperament. But the study finds no evidence for such an accumulation, and in fact finds evidence pointing in the opposite direction.

Studies consistently find that the “long-term impacts of violent games on youth aggression are near zero”, they write.

“We call on both individual scholars as well as professional guilds such as the American Psychological Association to be more forthcoming about the extremely small observed relationship in longitudinal studies between violent games and youth aggression,” the authors conclude.

While that link may be slim, other studies have shown interesting effects on wider emotional behaviour. Research from the University of New South Wales in 2018 , for instance, found that people who frequently played violent video games were less distracted by violent images in other contexts, a phenomenon the study author called “emotion-induced blindness”.

• New Zealand

Most viewed

Violent video games: content, attitudes, and norms

• Original Paper
• Open access
• Published: 16 October 2023
• Volume 25 , article number  52 , ( 2023 )

Cite this article

You have full access to this open access article

• Alexander Andersson   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0002-4911-3853 1 &
• Per-Erik Milam 1  

3535 Accesses

Explore all metrics

Violent video games (VVGs) are a source of serious and continuing controversy. They are not unique in this respect, though. Other entertainment products have been criticized on moral grounds, from pornography to heavy metal, horror films, and Harry Potter books. Some of these controversies have fizzled out over time and have come to be viewed as cases of moral panic. Others, including moral objections to VVGs, have persisted. The aim of this paper is to determine which, if any, of the concerns raised about VVGs are legitimate. We argue that common moral objections to VVGs are unsuccessful, but that a plausible critique can be developed that captures the insights of these objections while avoiding their pitfalls. Our view suggests that the moral badness of a game depends on how well its internal logic expresses or encourages the players’ objectionable attitudes. This allows us to recognize that some games are morally worse than others—and that it can be morally wrong to design and play some VVGs—but that the moral badness of these games is not necessarily dependent on how violent they are.

Similar content being viewed by others

Narrative theory and the dynamics of popular movies.

James E. Cutting

Virtual experience, real consequences: the potential negative emotional consequences of virtual reality gameplay

Raymond Lavoie, Kelley Main, … Danielle King

Sports Betting Advertising: A Systematic Review of Content Analysis Studies

Elizabeth A. Killick & Mark D. Griffiths

Avoid common mistakes on your manuscript.

Introduction

Violent video games (VVGs) are a source of serious and continuing controversy. They are not unique in this respect, though. Other entertainment products have been criticized on moral grounds, from pornography to heavy metal, horror films, and Harry Potter books. Some of these controversies have fizzled out over time and have come to be viewed as cases of moral panic. Footnote 1  Others, including moral objections to VVGs, have persisted. The aim of this paper is to determine which, if any, of the concerns raised about VVGs are legitimate.

Moral objections to VVGs have three main components, which can be understood as answers to the following three questions:

Moral Question: Why are VVGs morally bad or wrong?

Comparison Question: Why are they worse than other forms of violent entertainment?

Regulation Question: What should be done about them?

For example, one might argue that VVGs desensitize players to violence thereby making them more likely to act violently themselves, that VVGs do this more effectively than violent films or books, and that VVGs should therefore be prohibited or strongly regulated.

In this paper, we evaluate the most common answers to the moral and comparison questions, but set aside the regulation question. Not only does regulation raise a number of other ethical considerations—including free speech, paternalism, and policy design and enforcement—it also requires that we first understand the comparative badness of VVGs.

The paper is structured as follows. Section “ Background and preliminaries ” gives a brief overview of the controversies surrounding VVGs and explains how we will structure and focus our evaluation. Section “ The causation argument ” considers the claim that it is wrong to design and play VVGs in virtue of their bad consequences and concludes that the empirical evidence that playing VVGs causes bad outcomes is inconclusive, and that even if we grant that they have bad effects, VVGs are not distinctively bad in this respect. Section “ The violence argument ” considers the claim that VVGs are bad in virtue of features like realism that are independent of their consequences, but we conclude that existing accounts of these features fail to adequately explain why some VVGs should be considered morally objectionable. Having rejected these accounts of the comparative badness of VVGs, Sect. “ The internal logic of violent video games ” offers an alternative explanation.

Background and preliminaries

There is a history of blaming VVGs for violent acts such as school shootings, mass shootings, and murder in the United States. Footnote 2 Games such as Mortal Kombat, Doom , and Manhunt have all caused controversy in the past. They depict gory, brutal, and gratuitous violence as entertainment. For the uninitiated it may be inexplicable why anyone would enjoy what is happening on screen. Hence, the popular sentiment seems to be that there must be something morally bad about these games.

Since VVGs have been picked out as especially bad, we want to investigate whether it is justified to single them out for criticism. We will argue that most, but not all, common criticisms of VVGs are unjustified. Moreover, any justified criticism will also apply to other forms of entertainment. Thus, for any particular VVG, we must conclude either that it is morally permissible to design and play it or that it is morally wrong to create and consume other relevantly similar entertainment products. Which conclusion is warranted will depend on the details of the case.

However, there are multiple ongoing debates about the comparative badness of VVGs, so, before making any substantive claims, let us first explain how we will structure and focus our investigation.

Targets . While concerns about VVGs appear to be about the video games themselves, games are not natural evils like an earthquake or a volcanic eruption. They are designed and played—not to mentioned commissioned and distributed—by moral agents. We therefore focus on the two most plausible targets of these criticisms: players and developers. Insofar as a game is criticized on moral grounds, we take this to be a criticism either of those who created its content or those who created the particular instances of violence by playing the game. Some may object that critics should direct their objections and blame at the companies that commission the games and the governments that fail to regulate them properly. Maybe so. But such criticisms presuppose that there is something objectionable about the games themselves or about playing them.

Topics . Even limiting our attention to developers and players leaves many issues to consider. Multiplayer online gaming has given rise to concerns about toxic environments and interactions, which may be influenced by the violent content of many of these games. This is a serious problem and one where reforms are possible and can make a real difference to the well-being and experience of gamers, but we will not address it here. Nor will we consider the moral status of violent assault on another player’s avatar—e.g. robbing them for items, killing them out of spite, or ‘griefing’ them. These kinds of behaviors also deserve attention, but they introduce potentially confounding variables into an analysis because they involve moral agents who can be harmed through the treatment of their avatars. We therefore limit our focus to single-player VVGs Footnote 3 —i.e., video games that include violence or violent themes—including those singled out in debates about the ethics of VVGs, like Doom, Grand Theft Auto V, Last of Us II.

It should also be noted that while we use the term “VVG” to denote a specific category of games, what we are essentially interested in is moral agency in games in general. However, since most discussions relating to this topic focuses on violence and VVGs, that is where our main focus will be as well. Having restricted our task in these ways, let us now consider why it might be morally wrong to develop or play VVGs.

The causation argument

Probably the most common objection to VVGs is that they have (or risk) bad effects. According to the Causation Argument, video game violence is morally bad because it causes players to be more aggressive and violent, which is bad both for the players themselves and for those who are therefore more likely to be victims of their aggression and violence (e.g. classmates, family members, coworkers). This claim—that VVGs influence players’ behavior outside of the game—is sometimes called the ‘contamination thesis’ (Goerger, 2017 : p. 97). Peter Singer puts the point succinctly: “The risks are great and outweigh whatever benefits violent video games may have. The evidence may not be conclusive, but it is too strong to be ignored any longer” (Singer, 2007 ).

Because this moral argument relies on empirical premises, it is important to spell out what would constitute a strong empirical case against VVGs. We identify four criteria:

The violent content of VVGs must cause the bad effects.

The bad effects must be worse than other tolerable forms of violent entertainment.

The bad effects must counterbalance whatever good effects these games have.

There must be sufficient consensus among researchers about (i), (ii), and (iii). Footnote 4

Let us be clear about these requirements. One need not show that VVGs are entirely, or even overall, bad in order to condemn them on moral grounds. Societies rightly criticize and regulate many products that are overall bad even while acknowledging that they are good in some respects (e.g. cigarettes). Societies sometimes even criticize products that are good overall on the grounds that they should be better (e.g. unsafe cars or energy inefficient appliances). Insofar as the Causation Argument is concerned with the effects of VVGs, our suggestion is simply that we think like consequentialists when assessing them. We should be concerned with all the effects and with everyone who is affected; we should be concerned with the magnitudes of the effects, their likelihood , and our confidence in the empirical evidence of their risks and consequences; and we should assess these effects relative to all available alternatives .

We can start with the empirical case against VVGs. The large empirical literature suggests four ways that players might be affected. First, players may become more aggressive after playing VVGs (Anderson et al., 2010 ; Lin, 2013 ; Kepes et al., 2017 ; Farrar et al., 2017 ; Shao & Wang, 2019 ). Measures of aggression range from self-reports of engaging in aggressive behavior to indictors like “how long a participant blows an air horn at an opponent after playing a violent game” (Goerger, 2017 : p. 98). Second, VVGs may desensitize players to violence (Deselms & Altman, 2003 ; Funk et al., 2004 ; Carnagey et al., 2007 ; Bushman & Anderson, 2009 ; Engelhardt et al., 2011 ). Desensitization is also measured in different ways, including how long it takes for participants to help others in (simulated) need or how lenient a sentence they give an imagined criminal. Third, it has been suggested that VVGs train players how to kill (Grossman & DeGaetano, 1999 ; Leonard, 2007 ; Bushman, 2018 ). For instance, Bushman showed that players firing a real gun at a human-shaped mannequin were more likely to aim at the mannequin’s head after having played a violent first-person shooter (FPS) game. Footnote 5 Fourth, Wonderly and others suggest that playing VVGs, especially given their increasingly realistic depictions of violence, may diminish one’s capacity for empathy (Wonderly, 2008 ; Funk et al., 2004 ; Bartholow et al., 2005 ). If any of these four causal hypotheses is correct, then condition (i) would seem to be satisfied.

However, there is significant disagreement about these findings and their significance. First, none of the existing research claims that playing VVGs has directly caused anyone to commit actual acts of violence in the real world. This is not surprising, but it is a notable point of contrast with other products and behaviors that we might wish to regulate or ban (e.g. dangerous toys or incitements to violence). Second, there is disagreement about how to interpret the results of the studies cited above. Some have questioned the practical significance of increased aggressive behavior measured in a lab environment (Ferguson and Kilburn 2010 ; Goerger, 2017 ; Hall et al., 2011 ). Others have argued that the field suffers from a publication bias that favors finding an effect of VVGs on aggression (Ferguson, 2007 ; Ferguson & Kilburn, 2009 ; Hilgard et al., 2017 ). Footnote 6 Third, and perhaps most interesting, some have argued that it is the form of a game, rather than its content, that causes aggression. One study suggests that playing games that thwart a player’s fundamental need for competence led to increased aggression (Przybylski et al., 2014 ). Another showed that competition rather than violence causes aggression (Dowsett & Jackson, 2019 ). These studies suggest that features other than violence are of equal or greater concern. Thus, while there is provocative evidence about the bad effects of playing VVGs, there is insufficient scientific consensus. Footnote 7

Suppose that empirical studies had decisively demonstrated that VVGs cause increased aggression and violence. Do we have reason to believe that the bad effects of VVGs are worse than the bad effects of other violent entertainment that we presently tolerate? Some research suggests that VVGs cause more aggressive behavior than watching violent movies or violent gameplay because they are interactive (Lin, 2013 ). However, Lin points out that, “very little prior research has directly addressed the issue of media interactivity with regard to violent effects” ( 2013 : p. 535). Thus, while there is some support for condition (ii), there is far too little evidence to reasonably conclude that VVGs have worse effects than other violent entertainment (e.g. movies, television, books, or board games).

Even if the evidence supporting the Causation Argument satisfied conditions (i) and (ii), we could not yet condemn VVGs. We must also consider the benefits of playing these games. Studies suggest that some non-violent games enhance prosocial behavior among gamers (Sestir & Bartholow, 2010 ), that cooperative games decrease aggression (Gentile et al., 2009 ; Schmierbach, 2010 ), and that video games strengthen our ability to engage in ethical decision making (Madigan, 2016 ). We should be as critical of these studies as we are of those that condemn VVGs, but our point is simply that potential harms should be weighed against potential benefits. One compelling point in favor of VVGs is their incredible popularity. While it is difficult to find concrete and specific information, the following data give a rough picture of gamers’ revealed preferences: as of 2019 more than 2.5 billion people play video games, the average gamer plays more than 6 h per week, roughly half of that play is on consoles and computers (the rest is on tablets or phones), 9% of games are rated M for Mature (the category that contains most controversial VVGs), but those games are among the most popular in terms of sales. For example, Grand Theft Auto V is the third highest selling video game, and the highest grossing entertainment product, of all time (Narula, 2019 ; Limelight, 2020 ). Another compelling point is the suggestion that VVGs, like all games, are experiments in agency. For designers they are an art form whose medium is the agency of the player. And for players they are an opportunity to experiment with the alternative forms of agency created by designers (Nguyen, 2019 : p. 423).

The strength of the Causation Argument depends on various empirical claims. We have shown that none of the relevant claims has been established to a sufficient level of confidence. Furthermore, even if they had been, an outcome-focused argument must assess VVGs in the same light as other risky phenomena and it is not obvious why we should view VVGs as overall worse than many products and activities we accept (or tolerate). Nonetheless, if VVGs are harmful to the players, even relatively weak empirical evidence might be sufficient to ground a moral imperative to develop and play non-violent games rather than VVGs.

The violence argument

Perhaps it is not the effects of VVGs that make them morally objectionable but rather some feature of the games themselves. A second kind of argument, call it the Violence Argument, pursues this line of thought, arguing that VVGs are bad because they represent violence for the purpose of entertainment and that it is therefore (at least pro tanto ) wrong to develop and play such games. Footnote 8

Of course, many types of media represent violence, whether for educational purposes (e.g. non-fiction and journalism) or for entertainment (e.g. poetry, novels, comics, film, and television). Thus, if we are justified in appreciating or tolerating violence in these genres, then the Violence Argument must show that the ways VVGs represent violence are distinctively bad. The most common suggestions are that they are distinctively bad because they are much more realistic, interactive, and immersive.

The depiction of violence in video games has become more realistic as technology has improved. While Mortal Kombat and Doom’s 16-bit violence provoked American parents in the 1990s, they could scarcely have imagined the high-fidelity violence of games such as The Last of Us II. Nothing is left to the imagination as headshots leave a spray of blood and brains, heads are smashed to pieces with baseball bats, all while the victims plead for mercy or shriek in agony. These kinds of advances led Waddington to worry that, as video game violence becomes more realistic, it will be increasingly difficult to differentiate real from simulated transgressions ( 2007 : p. 127).

However, in order to support the Violence Argument, it must be the case that VVGs represent violence in a way that is more realistic than other media and that more realistic representations of violence are morally worse than less realistic representations.

On the first point, video game violence does not seem more realistic than violence in other media. Consider two related forms of realism: content realism and context realism. Footnote 9 A representation is content realistic to the degree that it depicts what would happen in real life. For example, a game might accurately depict how bones break or what happens when a bullet strikes a torso. In this respect, VVGs can be surprisingly realistic, but less so than many films (e.g., Saving Private Ryan ) and much less so than many real videos that people watch for amusement (e.g., the watermelon catapult). Moreover, their content realism is mostly limited to the visual modality. A written representation of violence might have similar content realism, but no visual component (outside of imagination). A representation is context realistic to the degree that it represents a situation that could plausibly occur. This is somewhat relative. A war setting is surely more realistic than, say, battling demons on another planet, but is World War II a realistic context for a millennial gamer? Here too, most VVGs seem less realistic than other media, which often depict disturbing forms of violence for dramatic purposes (e.g., intimate partner violence or police brutality).

On the second point, representing violence may sometimes be worse if it is more realistic—even ignoring any harmful effects on the player like stress or nightmares. Some realistic contexts seem obviously morally worse than others. Public reactions to games seem to match this intuition, as when many objected to The Slaying of Sandy Hook , whose setting was the location of a tragic school shooting. However, this worry does not necessarily transfer to those VVGs that are common targets of criticism, like the Grand Theft Auto series.

The game (GTA) not only depicts drug and gang related violence, but it presents that violence in a largely consequence free environment. Further, this crime is ‘real’ in the sense that similar crimes and criminal enterprises currently control broad swaths of metropolitan areas like Los Angeles … Players are, essentially, being entertained by the misery of others and are thus disrespecting the object of value (Goerger, 2017 : p. 102).

While there is plenty to criticize about GTA , Georger’s comments are mistaken. First, he seriously misrepresents (or misunderstands) the degree to which GTA accurately depicts the level of crime in metropolitan areas like Los Angeles. There are no “broad swaths” of American cities that are controlled by criminal enterprises. Second, while such games do make light of real violence, these representations are neither more realistic nor more violent than many films and television series. Thus, even if we accept that representing violence can be morally bad, it is not the case that most VVGs, including common targets of criticism, are worse in this respect than other tolerated forms of media.

Interaction

Another salient feature of VVGs is that they are interactive in a way that some other media are not. While a movie audience may hope that Woody Harrelson decides to stop at a supermarket and kill some zombies in order to get a Twinkie, a player of Redneck Rampage can make that happen. The player’s experience is interactive insofar as their actions, “make a significant difference to what happens in the environment” (Chalmers, 2017 : p. 312). Some therefore press a version of the Violence Argument according to which being a passive consumer of violent films or books is less bad than “performing” violent acts in a video game (Tillson, 2018 ). Footnote 10

Our view is that violent interaction itself, ignoring the realism and immersive experience of the interaction, is not morally bad. Moreover, even if it were, it would not be worse than other forms of entertainment. A writer interacts with her fictional characters with a similar degree of agency as a gamer does with the non-playable characters (NPCs) she encounters. The writer’s interaction is unrealistically one-sided, but she can nonetheless choose to kill them off and to do so in a brutal fashion [e.g., (redacted to avoid spoilers)]. This does not seem bad at all. Or consider games of make-believe. Kids playing war with toy guns is just as interactive as video gaming. In order for there to be a war, the kids must perform some actions, just as a player must control her avatar in order for there to be in-game violence. Traditional roleplaying games and board games—whose content can be just as violent as VVGs—requires a similar degree of interaction. In order to claim that VVGs are worse than other violent entertainment, one would have to show that video game interactions are different in kind from the forms of make-believe involved in writing fiction, roleplaying, and other violent entertainment. If anything, the fact that enemies are programmed and that experience is mediated by controllers and other devices would seem to make video games less interactive than your average game of Cops and Robbers or Dungeons and Dragons. We therefore conclude that VVGs are not worse than other violent entertainment in virtue of being interactive.

Finally, VVGs might seem morally bad, and worse than other media, because players can more easily become immersed in the violence of the game. This is bad because, regardless of whether a game is visually realistic, it is bad to experience that violence as real. If part of the value of games is that they allow us to inhabit a ‘temporary practical agency’ (Nguyen, 2019 : p. 438) within which we can “occupy alter-ego points of view and practice new strategies by accessing possible spaces of action and affective responses” (Schellenberg, 2013 : p. 509), then the value of such experiments presumably depends on the design of those practical agencies and the contexts in which players inhabit them, including whether they are suffused with violence that is experienced by the player as real.

Immersion occurs when a player experiences the game as if it is real or as if she herself were experiencing the events of the game in the shoes of her character. One dimension of immersion is ‘presence,’ or “the sense of being present at that perspective” (Chalmers, 2017 : p. 312). The immersiveness of a game depends, in part, on its realism. Content and context realism can make immersion more likely, but perspectival fidelity is also important (Ramirez, 2019 ). A representation has perspectival fidelity to the degree that the structure of the experience is realistic. For example, a video game has lower perspectival fidelity if the player uses a controller rather than a VR set up, if the representation includes non-diegetic sound (e.g., music) or a heads-up display (e.g., location, health, remaining ammo), and if the point of view is third- rather than first-person. Importantly, VVGs are unlikely to have greater perspectival fidelity than other media, except insofar as they are more likely to have a first-person perspective. Footnote 11 However, even in this respect the experience they provide has lower fidelity than, say, children playing war, teens playing paintball, or adults performing historical recreations of famous battles.

A more general problem with the argument that VVGs are bad because players are more likely to have an immersive experience of violence is that it is simply not clear whether being immersed in a VVG is worse than being immersed in another violent or disturbing source of entertainment. For example, films and novels are generally praised when they effectively draw in a viewer. Such praise may reflect their aesthetic value, which is compatible with being morally bad, but the same could be said about VVGs. Footnote 12

An objection

At this point, defenders of the Violence Argument might object that, by addressing these factors in isolation, we have made a strawman of their position. Movies can be realistic but not interactive; novels can be immersive but not interactive; tabletop roleplaying games can be immersive but are not usually realistic; and kids playing war can be interactive but lacks a certain kind of realism. The problem with VVGs—and what makes them distinctive among violent forms of entertainment—is precisely that they are realistic, interactive, and immersive.

If the problem is the combination, then VVGs might be distinctively morally bad even if possessing just one of these features is tolerable. Just as a gun is composed of innocuous pieces which, once assembled, constitute a dangerous weapon, so the combination of realism, interactivity, and immersiveness may render video game violence morally objectionable.

However, the problem with this line of argument can be seen by reflecting further on the analogy. The problem with an assembled gun is not that all of its components are in one place. The problem is that a functioning handgun affords certain actions that its unassembled pieces do not. Footnote 13 This is not true of VVGs—or, at least, the evidence for this claim remains inconclusive. In order for the combination of realism, interactivity, and immersion to render video game violence distinctively bad, opponents of VVGs must show either that developing such games makes them dangerous (the Causation Argument) or that this combination is itself distinctively bad (the Violence Argument).

This latter point seems to be what Ali ( 2023 ) alludes to in relation to virtual reality experiences: “VR pushes the virtual closer to the nonvirtual, making, e.g., VR experiences as valuable (in reproductions), or closer in value (as simulations), to their nonvirtual counterparts” (Ali, 2023 : p. 241). It seems plausible that realism, interactivity, and immersion can enhance one’s experience of some piece of entertainment—as actors in films and plays can attest. However, Ali’s ( 2023 , 2015 ) account falls short when it comes to explaining what makes a VVG morally objectionable. According to his view, badness varies with realism. This may be true for reproductions and simulations, which, by definition, vary with realism. Yet, it is not obviously true for video games, where the badness appears to be dependent on other factors. Ali ( 2015 ) highlights one aspect that appears to be the decisive factor for why this is the case. VR simulations, unlike VVGs, lack context and story. Footnote 14 Thus, in order to make the case that virtual violence can be morally bad even in games where the violence is situated within a narrative and performed in pursuit of a goal (i.e., VVGs), we must look for explanations elsewhere. In the next section, we consider alternative critiques of video games and offer an account of our own.

The internal logic of violent video games

We have argued that the level of concern about the outcomes of developing and playing VVGs and about the fact that VVGs are realistic, interactive, and immersive is unjustified. However, there may nonetheless be something morally objectionable about developing or playing VVGs. In this final section, we try to capture the kernel of truth at the heart of the widespread and persistent objections to video game violence by identifying what we take to be a reasonable concern. Our account steers a middle course between moral panic and facile defenses of VVGs by embracing the similarities and continuities between violent and non-violent video games, as well as between video games and other forms of entertainment. In doing so, we build on other recent arguments that have illuminated legitimate ethical concerns about video games, while suggesting that these arguments indict video game violence in ways that they fail to recognize.

We suggest that the most plausible moral objection to VVGs is that some of them generate or perpetuate morally objectionable norms of appropriate violence—i.e., norms of when violence is an appropriate response to a situation. This objection suggests that violence is indeed problematic, but also that it is one dimension of a more general moral concern.

One way to assess VVGs is to imagine uncontroversially immoral games and isolate their objectionable features. It would be reasonable to condemn both the developers and the players of racist or misogynistic games in which the aim is to, say, exterminate Jews or sexually assault women. For many, such concerns depend neither on the kind of effects identified by the Causation Argument nor on their realism, interactivity, or immersion (Patridge, 2011 ). A natural explanation of what precisely makes such games objectionable is that it is wrong to be or act in racist or misogynistic ways and the developers and players of such games are (usually) acting in these ways simply by developing or playing the game. For example, we might say that a misogynistic game either subordinates women or depicts their subordination, and that players participate in that subordination—or at least demonstrates a failure of sensitivity to and sympathy for women (Patridge, 2011 : p. 310)—by playing the games, even if the women depicted are not real.

If one accepts this kind of explanation, one might further argue that non-racist and non-misogynistic VVGs could have content that is similar in morally relevant ways. Footnote 15 If a misogynistic game can subordinate women, then a game where the player aims to kill enemies can subordinate whichever group is depicted as the enemy. Just as misogynistic games depict female characters as fitting targets of assault or abuse, violent games depict certain characters as fitting targets of physical violence. And if sexual violence is bad, in part, because it is violence, then removing the sexual dimension cannot render the game morally innocuous—though it would certainly make it less bad. Call this the Analogy Argument .

This argument has a certain plausibility, but does not succeed as stated. To see why, consider two ways in which the defender of VVGs might reply. First, they could reply that what is morally objectionable is not the content of a game, but how one plays it. One who revels in killing innocent bystanders is acting wrongly in a way that a person who plays the same game in order to complete it as quickly and bloodlessly as possible is not. Call this the Sadism Reply . On this way of thinking, it is the mental state of the player, not the content of the game that explains its badness.

The inadequacy of the Sadism Reply is fairly obvious. Sadism—understood as taking pleasure in the wrongful treatment of others (i.e., in moral evil)—is not the only attitude we find morally objectionable. Schadenfreude—understood as taking pleasure in the non-moral suffering of others (i.e., natural evil)—is another, and there are more, from racism and sexism to simple indifference to others’ well-being. If sadism in VVGs is problematic, then so are these others attitudes. Moreover, non-violent games can be played in sadistic ways—e.g., choosing, in The Sims , to drown your neighbors in your swimming pool—and are therefore open to the same critiques, which seems implausible. Finally, it is unclear how we can condemn a player’s sadistic pleasure in doing virtual violence when we cannot condemn virtual violence itself. The wrongness of taking sadistic pleasure in another’s suffering arguably presumes the wrongness of causing that suffering, but the Sadism Reply attempts to deny the latter while shifting criticism to the former.

Second, the defender of VVGs could point out that misogyny is morally objectionable because its targets—women—are an oppressed group in society. Call this the Power Reply . On this way of thinking, an otherwise identical gender-reversed game, where women victimize men, would not be objectionable in the same way. And, they might say, what we find in most VVGs is precisely that, violence that is admittedly gratuitous but nonetheless morally acceptable—or at least tolerable—because it is not gendered. (Similar points could be made about other dimensions of oppression.) Patridge argues that the content of some video games has “incorrigible social meaning” that targets women and marginalized groups ( 2011 : p. 308). For example, the meaning of a black character eating watermelon is explained by particular social realities (e.g., the persistence of demeaning racial stereotypes) and is incorrigible in the sense that it is difficult to interpret in any other way because of those realities (i.e., there is no plausible interpretation of that image that does not reference those stereotypes). However, Patridge suggests that violent content often either lacks social meaning or has social meaning that is reasonably interpretable in a way that does not implicate some reprehensible feature of our shared moral reality, like racism, misogyny, or homophobia ( 2011 : p. 310).

Even if Patridge is right that most video game violence itself is unlikely to have the incorrigible social meaning of games like Custer’s Revenge , it does not follow that it does not implicate reprehensible features of our shared moral reality. Whether it does is an open question. Content with incorrigible social meaning implicates our shared moral reality by forcing us to recognize that some words, images, or ideas are inextricably linked to hateful and prejudicial ideologies. If video game violence can itself implicate other reprehensible features, what might those features be and how would they be implicated? Our answer is that power norms—i.e. norms of domination and subordination—are just one type of objectionable norm that can be built into the ‘logic’ of a game. Footnote 16 Another type is norms of appropriate violence, which, while often bound up with power norms, are separable. We would rightly criticize a society whose logic of appropriate physical violence included, say, occasions when one is frustrated with a coworker—and this is true independently of the coworkers’ respective social status. But if this is right, then why is a game whose logic of appropriate violence includes anyone who gets in the way of your mission not objectionable on similar grounds? Thus, while both replies warrant revisions and qualifications of the Analogy Argument, we can begin to see how a revised version of the argument might be successful.

Call this revision of the Analogy Argument the Internal Logic Argument (ILA). The ‘logic’ of a video game is the structure, incentives, and constraints that guide player behavior. It is a matter of what the player can do and what they are encouraged to do in the game. In other words, it is the set of ideas (mission/quest, combat, survival) and practices (enacting those ideas via the means provided and avoiding obstacles to doing so) that allow the player to have a successful playthrough—e.g., to progress in the game, to be enjoyable, and be an opportunity to engage in the ‘art of agency’ (Nguyen, 2019 ). Footnote 17 Understood in this way, the logic of a game includes what Nguyen calls its “value clarity,” in that it stipulates a clear structure and conditions for success ( 2020 : 20). However, whereas Nguyen is most concerned about players applying the simplified logic of a video game to contexts where values are more opaque and complex, we are concerned with the content of a game’s internal logic. Our suggestion is that the logic of a game can express, encourage, and legitimate objectionable attitudes and norms of appropriate violence.

As noted above, games such as Custer’s Revenge can express attitudes of hatred and prejudice by targeting specific groups in its gameplay. When it comes to VVGs, Postal 2 , whose tongue-in-cheek comments are prompted when excessive and degrading violence is exerted on innocent bystanders, expresses a lax attitude towards violent behavior. The logic of the game, manifested in minor rewards, treats civilians as fair game when the player’s character is on his way to pick up milk from the store.

A game’s logic and gameplay mechanics can also encourage problematic player behavior. The internal logic of some games is straightforward and explicit. A game may have an obvious theme that directly guides gameplay (e.g., Duck Hunt or Super Columbine Massacre ), or it may incentivize particular ways of playing by awarding points, experience, and trophies for particular results. But a game’s explicit themes, rewards, and punishments do not exhaust its logic. Just like real life, games are full of subtle incentives and nudges that shape how one behaves. Examples include whether a particular NPC can be killed, how players’ treatment of NPCs affects their success, and how the design of a level or quest privileges particular strategies for completing it. Footnote 18 A game embodies norms of appropriate violence based on how violence is afforded by the structure of the game (whether enemies can be avoided, how they can be dealt with, what kinds of items one can acquire and how frequently, etc.). Christopher Bartel gives a relevant example from Grand Theft Auto IV , in which the player is forced to shoot their way out of a bank robbery scenario by attacking the police ( 2015 : p. 290). It is not possible to try to evade the police or succeed in the scenario in any other way.

Miguel Sicart has argued that developers set the ethical boundaries of a game through the formal structure of the game (e.g., game rules) and the actions afforded to the player (e.g., game mechanics). As a result, games are “always ethically relevant systems, since they constrain the agency of an ethical being” (Sicart, 2009 : p. 6). We extend this idea, holding that if a game can constrain players’ behavior, then it can also funnel their behavior in particular directions—though the influence the game exerts may not reflect any intention on the part of the designer. For example, in Grand Theft Auto: Vice City the player can have sex with a prostitute in order to temporarily increase their maximum health. This is not a necessary feature, since the success of a playthrough in Vice City is not dependent on the player’s ability to buy sex. However, it represents a decision by the game designers which codes this act as ‘good’ by increasing the player’s max health.

If a game can express and encourage certain morally problematic attitudes and behaviors, it can also legitimate those attitudes and behaviors. Just as “games threaten us with a fantasy of moral clarity” (Nguyen, 2020 : p. 21), some ways of playing VVGs and the attitudes expressed by doing so may extend beyond the game. In one of the main missions of GTA V , titled “By the book”, the player is forced to torture an NPC in order to progress in the main story. The player can only achieve a “gold rank” on the mission if they waterboard, electrocute, and pull out the teeth of the NPC without killing him. Not only does the logic of this specific mission express and encourage certain attitudes towards torture. It may also legitimate the practice by presenting it as a viable means to an end or a “necessary evil”.

One might share our concern about how the internal logic of video games may legitimate certain attitudes and norms, but deny that violent content is a serious problem. Nguyen agrees that games can exert a subtle and malign influence on our values, but claims to be “more worried about games breeding Wall Street profiteers than…about their breeding serial killers” ( 2020 : p. 190). Footnote 19 He gives two reasons for this. First, he finds plausible Young’s suggestion that fictional game events tend not to be exported to players’ real lives. This would presumably include a game’s norms of appropriate violence. Second, he is more concerned that some games—especially those that result from gamifying activities like exercise, academic performance, etc.—will seduce players with a misleading but attractive “value clarity” ( 2020 : Chap. 9). In brief, Nguyen argues that part of the attraction of games is their clear and simple values—complete the quest, get the high score, kill your enemies—but that, unlike fictional game events, this simplicity can infiltrate players’ real world thinking in a problematic way. In particular, it can cause them (a) to view the real world through the lens of simplified values, (b) to be drawn to simplified values over the more complex values that are needed to navigate our messy moral lives, and (c) to “lose facility and readiness with … subtler value concepts” ( 2020 : p. 214). On this view, it’s unlikely that we’ll come to value violence of the sort we experience in games, and more likely that we’ll embrace simplified and gamified versions of our ordinary values, whether moral or non-moral.

However, we think Nguyen, like Patridge, fails to recognize how his reasoning might ground a legitimate worry about video game violence. The ILA suggests that violent content might be problematic precisely in the ways he thinks values might be undermined. Admittedly, lots of video game violence is unlikely to influence our values or norms simply because it is easily set aside when one stops playing. There is little chance that my in-game goal of winning a martial arts tournament while brutalizing and humiliating my opponents will influence my actual behavior or even instrumentalize my attitudes toward martial arts competition. However, the ILA is concerned precisely about in-game norms that appear innocuous and are accepted without reflection. There is no reason to think that violence norms are not subject to the same seductions of clarity as other values. Moreover, even if some violence norms are unlikely to be applied in the real world, an internal logic that expresses or legitimates those norms is still morally objectionable (e.g., Postal 2 or “By the Book” in GTA V ).

Let us address some potential worries about the ILA. First, one might reply that the logic of a VVG need only fit its content. If one is playing a war game and one’s avatar is a soldier, it makes sense that most of the NPCs one encounters are fitting targets of violence. This would undermine the criticisms of games such as Sniper Elite or Wolfenstein . Moreover, protecting oneself from enemy combatants is plausibly a matter of self-defense, which can permit lethal violence. This would render games like Doom or Fallout 4 unobjectionable. Similar points could be made about other genres of VVGs. Thus, it may be that the violence norms of many VVGs are roughly consistent with common sense morality. The ILA can accommodate this intuition, while still allowing that some VVGs are morally objectionable and, in those cases, explaining why.

Second, one might think that, while developers ought to design games whose logics meet some moral criteria, those criteria do not include eliminating or even minimizing violence. Some would claim, for example, that developers aren’t required to create a morally optimific logic that encourages players to, say, maximize the total well-being of other characters. Indeed, many would insist that the logic of a VVG can permissibly be much worse than the actual logic of our society, just as action films implicitly permit much more destruction of public and private property for the sake of catching criminals than is permitted by actual societies (see, e.g., Bad Boys or any movie in the Marvel Comics Universe). Footnote 20 This isn’t obviously right, though, and we would suggest that a game’s logic of appropriate violence should not be excessively cruel or indifferent to human suffering and that, sometimes, it should even improve on the logic of appropriate violence prevalent in our actual society. Footnote 21

One might object that the ILA does not pick out VVGs as distinctively bad or worse than other innocuous or tolerable video games or other media. This, however, is only partially true. It’s true that the ILA does not distinguish between games that have similar logics. As such, it would not necessarily be better to play Chex Quest than Doom , since zorching flemoids and shooting demons is motivated by a concern for one’s own survival in both cases. This also helps explain why games like Postal 2 and GTA are more appropriate targets of criticism than, say, Last of Us II (Goerger, 2017 : p. 101). While Last of Us II is much more graphic and gorier in its violent depictions, that violence is fitting in a way that the violence of Postal 2 is not. Footnote 22 Nor would it be worse to play violent video games than to watch action movies in which innocent bystanders are viewed as acceptable collateral damage. The ILA identifies a property found in some VVGs (and some movies, board games, etc.) and explains why it is inappropriate.

For all of these reasons, we think the ILA provides a plausible framework for critiquing VVGs. What emerges from the above discussion is a substantive and unified account of video game ethics. It explains how violent games can be open to similar criticisms as racist and misogynistic games. At the same time, it acknowledges that one might worry, not just about the violent content of such games, but about how gamers play them—i.e., the attitudes they manifest in doing so. The ILA unifies these concerns into a single critique that captures the kernel of truth running through traditional objections to VVGs, avoids the problems we raised for the Violence Argument, and extends the insights of two other illuminating critiques of video games, namely, those developed by Patridge ( 2011 ) and Nguyen ( 2020 ).

The core of our critique consists of four claims. First, a game’s content can be morally objectionable and violence is one, but not the only, kind of objectionable content. This is the lesson we learned from assessing real and imagined games with racist or misogynistic content and extending the reasoning underlying critiques of such games to a critique of violence. Second, the attitudes that a gamer expresses or enacts in playing a game can be morally objectionable. Sadism is one, but not the only, such attitude. Just as misogyny is not limited to the explicit, endorsed hatred of women as a group (Manne,  2017 ), sadism does not exhaust the objectionable attitudes one can have toward violence and the suffering of others. However, condemning such attitudes toward violence presupposes an objection to the violence itself. Third, while objectionable attitudes can arise on their own, games can express or encourage morally objectionable attitudes and gameplay in the same way that they shape other aspects of play. This does not mean that all players of VVGs will manifest the attitudes and behaviors encouraged by a game’s norms of appropriate violence, but it is a reasonable worry in light of the influence that the logic of a game exerts. Footnote 23 This is the lesson of the ILA. The most obvious examples of this are games in which the plot of the game requires actions that express or encourage objectionable attitudes (e.g. Custer’s Revenge or Battle Raper ). However, other games may encourage or shape players’ attitudes in more subtle ways—e.g. by normalizing violence, exploitation, and racism. Fourth, if these three points are correct, then our critique is not limited to VVGs, or even to video games. Gamers can manifest their sadistic, misogynistic, racist, and other attitudes in non-violent video games (e.g., The Sims or Civilization ), board games (e.g., Puerto Rico or Andean Abyss ) and tabletop RPGs (e.g. Dungeons and Dragons ), or any other kind of game. Moreover, any entertainment medium can, through its internal logic, express or encourage such attitudes. This means that our critique can embrace its generalizability in a way that was unavailable to the Violence Argument. On our account, the source of concern is neither violence per se nor its potential realism, interactivity, or immersiveness, but rather the logic of the game. Non-violent games and games that are minimally realistic, interactive, and immersive can have objectionable internal logics—e.g., by legitimating or glorifying imperialism, exploitation, or indifference toward the suffering of others. Moreover, the ILA explains why a game might warrant moral praise. For example, we might praise a game which logic expresses acceptance of a wrongly vilified group, encourages reflection on the complexity of a moral dilemma, or simply requires that one work through a problem real people might face. Footnote 24

Together these claims constitute a unified but limited critique of VVGs that avoids the implausible implications of some existing objections (e.g., that VVGs are distinctively bad) while explaining, substantiating, and extending the plausible claims of other critics. Our view suggests that how bad a game is depends on the attitudes, behaviors, and norms that its internal logic expresses, encourages, and legitimates. A game developer can be criticized for the internal logic of their game and a gamer can be criticized both for the attitude they bring to a game and for their acceptance, whether implicit or explicit, of a game’s internal logic. This account also plausibly implies that some games are morally worse than others and that their badness does not necessarily correlate with how violent they are or how realistic that violence is.

Before concluding, let us emphasize that its internal logic is one, but not the only, aspect of a game open to evaluation and criticism. Games are also, and perhaps foremost, aesthetic objects that can be beautiful, compelling, funny, disgusting, overwhelming, or just boring. The internal logic is that part of a game that tells the player how to progress and succeed within the game world. Indeed, this is what makes this kind of art object a game rather than a passive aesthetic experience (perhaps the “walking simulator” genre falls somewhere in between these categories). But it does not determine, by itself, a game’s value.

We have argued that common moral objections to VVGs are unsuccessful, but that a plausible critique can be developed that captures the insights of these objections while avoiding their pitfalls. The upshot of our account is that it can be morally wrong to design and play some VVGs, but that violence per se—no matter how realistic or immersive—is less likely to be problematic than the internal logic of a game and the attitudes it expresses and encourages.

In making our argument, we have not said which are the worst offenders, how bad they are, or what kind of response to their moral failings is warranted. These are tasks for another paper, but also for gamers, activists, regulators, and policy makers who want to know which games to play, which to educate the public about, and which to restrict access to. Some philosophers have developed frameworks that may provide guidance in answering these questions (Liberman, 2019 ), but there is much more to be said.

The most zealous campaigns against VVGs have been in the United States. We will not try to explain why that is the case, but we note that the industry’s implementation of a rating system following US Congressional hearings about video game violence 1993 may have forestalled similar controversies elsewhere as similar ratings systems were applied outside the US.

For an overview of the history of VVGs and their alleged relation to acts of violence see Campbell ( 2018 ).

Our arguments also apply to multiplayer games that can be played in single player mode, such as Mortal Kombat or Unreal Tournament .

What level of consensus is sufficient will depend on the magnitude of the risk/harm.

None of the studies critical of VVGs claim that they directly cause real world violence, though commentators sometimes make or imply such claims. Young emphasizes that “any attempt to posit a direct causal link between video game content and violent (real-world) behaviour should be regarded as overly simplistic, largely uncorroborated, and ultimately contentious” ( 2015 : p. 315).

See Anderson et al. ( 2010 ) for a reply to this objection.

There is room for improving the experimental design of VVGs, including eliminating confounds by studying the same games and controlling for variables like difficulty, competitiveness, and level of violence. Moreover, studies that find evidence that VVGs cause increased aggression should measure and compare the magnitude of that effect to other phenomena known to increase aggression—e.g., being insulted.

While some argue that realistic, interactive, and immersive violence are bad in themselves, others claim that it is these features of contemporary VVGs that cause violence or aggression in players. However, the latter is just a version of the Causation Argument, so we focus on those who take violence to be significant independently of its consequences.

Some might consider ‘perspectival fidelity’ to be a form of realism, but we consider this variable more relevant to a game’s immersiveness than to its realism (Ramirez, 2019 ).

Notice that, if video game violence is bad because it is interactive, designers are, at worst, guilty of facilitating violent interactions. The player is the primary wrongdoer. This asymmetry is reversed for those who worry about realism. Designers create realistic violence (e.g. fatalities in Mortal Kombat ), while players simply activate it.

Even this claim ignores the actors who do actually simulate the violence that the audience sees. They have a first-person point of view on the violence in a play or film. Of course, they know that they are not actually hurting their costars, but VVG gamers know this, too.

It is also worth noting that for many, the concern about immersion is a concern about the player’s experience and the effects of having such an experience (Waddington, 2007 : p. 127). However, this is ultimately a causation question and one that can be answered either by asking gamers about their immersive experiences or by measuring the effects of those experiences.

This is why gun control advocates often emphasize that the presence of a gun allows an altercation that might have resulted in a painful fist fight to instead result in a fatal shooting.

As is evident from the following passage: “[S] imulation games do not provide their own narrative, they simply allow the gamer’s context to define the in-game context. So, when a gamer enacts murder or pedophilia in these games, the act is one of virtual murder or virtual pedophilia because the gamer defines it in this way.” (Ali, 2015 : p. 273).

Some criticisms of games like Super Columbine Massacre , The Slaying of Sandy Hook , or Active Shooter/Standoff seem to make precisely this point.

This is not at all to imply that the sets of norms that sustain hateful and prejudicial attitudes and behavior toward members of oppressed groups are not especially important or deserving of particular attention and opposition.

Hence, the logic is in most cases intentional, meaning that certain player behavior is incentivized and rewarded in the game. But it could also be unintentional, such as when players find and exploit bugs that incentivize them to play in a way the developer did not intend nor expect.

Game designers have long recognized this and some have chosen, seemingly for moral reasons as well as aesthetic ones, to make the logic of a game virtuous. Richard Garriott has said this about his design choices for Ultima IV: Quest of the Avatar .

Nguyen’s topic is games in general, but his claims are meant to apply as much to video games as other types.

At the same time, some criticisms of the criminal justice ‘logic’ of action films seems both reasonable and overdue. Hollywood’s cavalier depiction of police brutality is receiving more scrutiny as protests against actual police violence received widespread attention and support. Depictions of rape in film have received similar critiques, with critics arguing that these scenes are often gratuitous or voyeuristic (Wilson, 2017 ).

Notice that the ILA does not merely imply that the most gratuitous violence is the most objectionable. The gratuitousness of a violent act may diverge from how strongly the act supports an objectionable norm. For example, a film in which casual physical violence is normalized can seem much more insidious than a gory slasher flick. A parallel point on objectionable comedy will help further elucidate this idea. Comedy should not indulge in facile jokes about sexual violence in prisons any more than it should indulge in facile jokes about rape generally. Many prison rape jokes legitimate the idea—seemingly widely held—that prisoners deserve whatever might happen to them in prison.

Last of Us II also depicts its violence in very ambiguous ways. It is not obviously portrayed as morally justified, just as humanly intelligible.

Jennifer Saul makes a similar point about the attitudes of those who watch pornography ( 2006 : p. 58).

A good example of this is This War of Mine where the player controls a group of civilians that are trapped in a war-torn country. The player is constantly prompted to make choices between the survival of the group and helping other civilians in need, forcing the player to reflect on the effects and ethics of war.

Ali, R. (2015). A new solution to the gamer’s dilemma. Ethics and Information Technology , 17 , 267–274.

Article   Google Scholar  

Ali, R. (2023). The values of the virtual. Journal of Applied Philosophy , 40 (2), 231–245.

Anderson, C. A., et al. (2010). Violent video game effects on aggression, empathy, and prosocial behavior in eastern and western cultures: A meta-analytic review. Psychological Bulletin, 136 (2), 151–173.

Bartel, C. (2015). Free will and moral responsibility in video games. Ethics and Information Technology , 17 , 285–293.

Article   MathSciNet   Google Scholar  

Bartholow, B., Sestir, M. A., & Davis, E. B. (2005). Correlates and consequences of exposure to video game violence: Hostile personality, empathy, and aggressive behavior. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin , 31 (11), 1573–1586.

Bushman, B. J. (2018). Boom, headshot! Violent first-person shooter (FPS) video games that reward headshots train individuals to aim for the head when shooting a realistic firearm. Aggressive Behavior , 45 (1), 33–41.

Bushman, B. J., & Anderson, C. A. (2009). Comfortably numb: Desensitizing effects of violent media on helping others. Psychological Science , 20 (3), 273–277.

Campbell, C. (2018). A brief history of blaming video games for mass murder. Polygon . Retrieved March 10, 2018, from  https://www.polygon.com/2018/3/10/17101232/a-brief-history-of-video-game-violence-blame .

Carnagey, N. L., Anderson, C. A., & Bushman, B. J. (2007). The effect of video game violence on physiological desensitization to real-life violence. Journal of Experimental Psychology , 43 (3), 489–496.

Google Scholar  

Chalmers, D. (2017). The virtual and the real. Disputatio , 9 (46), 309–352.

Deselms, J. L., & Altman, J. D. (2003). Immediate and prolonged effects of videogame violence. Journal of Applied Social Psychology , 33 (8), 1553–1563.

Dowsett, A., & Jackson, M. (2019). The effect of violence and competition within video games on aggression. Computers in Human Behavior , 99 , 22–27.

Engelhardt, C. R., et al. (2011). This is your brain on violent video games: Neural desensitization to violence predicts increased aggression following video game exposure. Journal of Experimental Psychology , 47 (5), 1033–1036.

Farrar, K. M., et al. (2017). Ready, aim, fire! Violent video game play and gun controller use: Effects on behavioral aggression and social norms concerning violence. Communication Studies , 68 (4), 369–384.

Ferguson, C. J. (2007). The good, the bad and the ugly: A meta-analytic review of positive and negative effects of violent video games. Psychiatric Quarterly , 78 (4), 309–316.

Ferguson, C. J., & Kilburn, J. (2009). The public health risks of media violence: A meta-analytic review. The Journal of Pediatrics , 154 (5), 759–763.

Ferguson, C. J., & Kilburn, J. (2010). Much ado about nothing: The misestimation and overinterpretation of violent video game effects in eastern and western nations: Comments on Anderson et al. (2010). Psychological Bulletin, 136 (2), 174–178.

Funk, J. B., et al. (2004). Violence exposure in real-life, video games, television, movies, and the internet: Is there desensitization? Journal of Adolescence , 27 (1), 23–39.

Gentile, D. A., et al. (2009). The effects of prosocial video games on prosocial behaviors: International evidence from correlational, longitudinal, and experimental studies. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin , 35 (6), 752–763.

Goerger, M. (2017). Value, violence, and the ethics of gaming. Ethics and Information Technology , 19 (2), 95–105.

Grossman, D., & DeGaetano, G. (1999). Stop teaching our kids to kill: A call to action against TV, movie & video game violence . Crown.

Hall, R. C., Day, T., & Hall, R. C. W. (2011). A plea for caution: Violent video games, the supreme court and the role of science. Mayo Clinic Proceedings, 86 (4), 315–321.

Hilgard, J., Engelhardt, C. R., & Rouder, J. N. (2017). Overstated evidence for short-term effects of violent games on affect and behavior: A reanalysis of Anderson et al. (2010). Psychological Bulletin, 143 (7), 757–774.

Kepes, S., Bushman, B. J., & Anderson, C. A. (2017). Violent video game effects remain a societal concern: Reply to Hilgard, Engelhardt and Rouder. Psychological Bulletin , 143 (7), 775–782.

Leonard, D. (2007). Unsettling the military entertainment complex: Video games and pedagogy of peace. SIMILE: Studies in Media & Information Literacy Education , 4 (4), 1–8.

Liberman, A. (2019). But I voted for him for other reasons! moral responsibility and the doctrine of double endorsement. Oxford Studies in Normative Ethics, 9 , 138.

Limelight (2020). The state of online gaming–2020. Limelight Networks Technical report. https://www.limelight.com/resources/white-paper/state-of-online-gaming-2020/ .

Lin, J. H. (2013). Do video games exert stronger effects on aggression than film? The role of media interactivity and identification on the association of violent content and aggressive outcomes. Computers in Human Behavior , 29 , 535–543.

Madigan, J. (2016). Getting gamers: The psychology of video games and their impact on the people who play them . Rowman & Littlefield.

Manne, K. (2017). Down Girl: The logic of Misogyny . Oxford UP.

Book   Google Scholar  

Narula, H. (2019). A billion new players are set to transform the video game industry. Wired . Retrieved December 29, 2019, from  https://www.wired.co.uk/article/worldwide-gamers-billion-players .

Nguyen, C. T. (2019). Games and the art of agency. Philosophical Review, 128 (4), 423–462.

Nguyen, C. T. (2020). Games: Agency as Art . Oxford UP.

Patridge, S. L. (2011). The incorrigible social meaning of video game imagery. Ethics and Information Technology , 13 (4), 303–312.

Przybylski, A. K., et al. (2014). Competence impeding electronic games and players’ aggressive feelings, thoughts, and behaviors. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology , 106 (3), 441–457.

Ramirez, E. J. (2019). Ecological and ethical issues in virtual reality research: A call for increased scrutiny. Philosophical Psychology , 32 (2), 211–233.

Saul, J. (2006). On treating things as people: Objectification, pornography, and the history of the vibrator. Hypatia , 21 (2), 45–61.

Schellenberg, S. (2013). Belief and desire in imagination and immersion. Journal of Philosophy , 110 (9), 497–517.

Schmierbach, M. (2010). Killing spree: Exploring the connection between competitive game play and aggressive cognition. Communication Research , 37 (2), 256–274.

Sestir, M. A., & Bartholow, B. D. (2010). Violent and nonviolent video games produce opposing effects on aggressive and prosocial outcomes. Journal of Experimental Psychology , 46 (6), 934–942.

Shao, R., & Wang, Y. (2019). The relation of violent video game to adolescent aggression: An examination of moderated mediation effect. Frontiers in Psychology , 10 , 384.

Sicart, M. (2009). Beyond choices: A typology of ethical computer game designs. International Journal of Gaming and Computer-Mediated Simulation , 1 (3), 1–13.

Singer, P. (2007). Video crime peril vs. virtual pedophilia. Japan Times . Retrieved July 22, 2007, from  https://www.japantimes.co.jp/opinion/2007/07/22/commentary/world-commentary/video-crime-peril-vs-virtual-pedophilia/ .

Tillson, J. (2018). Is it distinctively wrong to simulate doing wrong? Ethics and Information Technology , 20 (3), 205–217.

Waddington, D. I. (2007). Locating the wrongness in ultra-violent video games. Ethics and Information Technology , 9 (2), 121–128.

Wilson, L. (2017). The Long, Problematic History of Rape Scenes in Film. The Playlist . Retrieved October 26, 2017, from  https://theplaylist.net/problematic-history-rape-scenes-film-20171026/ .

Wonderly, M. (2008). A Humean approach to assessing the moral significance of ultra-violent video games. Ethics and Information Technology , 10 (1), 1–10.

Young, G. (2015). Violent video games and morality: A meta-ethical approach. Ethics and Information Technology , 17 (4), 311–321.

Download references

Open access funding provided by University of Gothenburg.

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

University of Gothenburg, Gothenburg, Sweden

Alexander Andersson & Per-Erik Milam

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Alexander Andersson .

Additional information

Publisher’s note.

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ .

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Andersson, A., Milam, PE. Violent video games: content, attitudes, and norms. Ethics Inf Technol 25 , 52 (2023). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10676-023-09726-6

Download citation

Published : 16 October 2023

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1007/s10676-023-09726-6

Share this article

Anyone you share the following link with will be able to read this content:

Sorry, a shareable link is not currently available for this article.

Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative

• Video games
• Find a journal
• Publish with us
• Track your research

Effects of Video Games Essay

Introduction, school performance, effects on social relationships.

The society has been immensely influenced by the technological changes, which are reshaping some of the activities. The emerging technologies in one way or another have affected every member of society, irrespective of age.

Video Games have had the greatest influence on the lives of children. Children no longer appreciate the outdoor games as was before, as most of their time is spend indoors playing video games.

Although this trend may have a positive impact on the lives of the concerned children as far as their knowledge of computer is concerned, there are various negative impacts.

Various educationists have confirmed that outdoor plays are very important to the development and growth of children.

It helps them develop socially as they meet with their friends and learn to share discussions, get involved in physical activities and develop physically through such games. The paper talks about some of the negative effects of computer games (Finkel, 1995).

It is established through research that computer games do not help children grow academically. In fact, computer games contribute to inactivity of body cells, which might lead to oversight hence causing diseases such as hypertension and diabetes.

Moreover, indoor games contribute to poor academic performance among students because most of the time is spend on useless games that do not offer any academic lessons.

Lastly, computer games lead to the development of antisocial behavior whereby a student is not interested in interacting with his or her peers.

Available literature shows that more children are growing obese owing to the fact that they spend little time exercising and engage frequently with the computer.

Research shows that children who take part in physical exercises are more healthy, intelligent, and active in class. The study conducted by American Heart Association proved that children are contracting heart diseases mainly because of lack of physical activity.

The research indicated that the number of obese children increased by four percent in 1974. Those affected were children aged six to eleven years.

However, the percentage increase could not be compared with the study conducted in 2006 whereby the increase rate was seventeen percent. As from 1971 to 2006, the number of adolescents thought to be obese increased from 6.1 percent to 17.6 percent.

The percentage increase was shocking. Furthermore, the increase was attributed to lack of physical activity and video games (Wiegman, & van Schie, 1998).

Overweight is a costly condition that leads to a number of illnesses among school going children. According to experts at the University of Michigan, obese children have higher risks of contracting diseases such as diabetes, heart diseases, and high blood pressure.

Other illnesses associated with overweight include high cholesterol levels in the body, hyperlipidemia, sleep apnea, respiratory problems, gastrointestinal malfunctions, early adolescence, and finally mental problems.

Studies show that obese children tend to have a low sense of worth and despair.

As AHA records show, obese children are likely to be obese when they attain the adulthood age. This would even cause more problems because they would be exposed to a number of diseases.

A study conducted by Media Literacy Clearinghouse indicated that children had developed a habit towards computer games. Video games had gained relevance among children aged eight and eighteen years to an extent that the rate at which children played computer games rose from an average of 26 minutes in 1999 to 73 minutes in 2009.

Generally, the rate at which children interacted with the computer daily rose from six hours in 1999 to seven hours in 2009. A report compiled in 2004 at the University Hospital of Zurich revealed that a strong link between obesity and video games exist.

It can be concluded that video games do not help children in any way but instead it affects their health. Video games interfere with the children’s eating habits because such children would tend to consume food with high calories.

In this regard, parents need to monitor the behavior of their children as regards to physical fitness.

In the United States, a study conducted to ascertain the effects of computer games on the performance of students proved that PlayStations and other video games such as Xbox Video affects the concentration of children in class.

Furthermore, the study revealed that children who are like using playing video games could not compete favorably with those who prefer physical games. One of the researchers was quoted saying that the performance of students who engage in physical exercises will always improve with time.

Boys are affected more by the new trend since they would rarely improve in class. Their performance would always remain stagnant for a period.

Moreover, boys cannot develop skills that would help them to read and write well in case they are allowed to interact with the computer frequently (Sakurai, 1984).

It should be noted that video games might not necessarily cause poor performance among school going children but the time spent in watching the games or playing them would consume the time that a student would be expected to read, do some homework, and write a good composition.

Definitely, a student would register a poor grade in case he or she does not engage in a serious research. Video games have a tendency of instilling negative reading attitudes to students. This is because a student would find reading a storybook or solving a mathematics problem boring.

Video games are very fast and demand a higher concentration unlike other academic activities that need time for conceptualization. In a joint study conducted in Australia, researchers concluded that video games affect the performance of students in many ways.

Students who spend time playing video games would always perform dismally in class. In fact, the study revealed that computer games do not help children perform well in any of the subjects. This is because students who spend time watching and playing computer games would always score low in each subject.

This research contradicts some of the assumptions that computer games help children to perform well in some subjects. The Australian study revealed that there is no single positive correlation between academic performance and computer games.

Video games are known to influence the cognitive and educational dexterities of children. Moreover, the games can as well as define the children’s social relationships. In a traditional setting, the relationship between the child and the parent or other senior members of society is clearly defined.

The video games have changed meaning that social relations are no longer the same. Studies indicate that video games, especially those that are violent, reshape the behavior of children. Moreover, video games could contain some sort of competition and aggression, which affect the reasoning of children.

In the current society, the rate at which conflicts occur in society has increased. Youths are currently violent because of the new games. The main objective of video games, according to Nintendo and Sega Genesis Center, is violence.

Any game played by children via the computer does not have anything new other than violent content. The companies specializing in selling computer games would convince parents that the games are non-violent but in the real sense, they are not.

A study conducted in 1998 confirmed that many children, over 80%, were familiar to a violent game referred to as Duke Nukem. Unfortunately, only 5% of parents were aware of the game meaning that children are access even those games that are supposed to be accessed by only the adults.

This trend affects the social life of children. In 1999, students at Columbine High School in Littleton, Colorado engaged in a destructive demonstration mainly because of the influence of computer games.

Students shot at their fellow teens and other people because they experienced it through video games. Such kind of behavior is destructive because it could lead to social anomy (Griffith, 1999).

Studies across the world indicate that violent video games increase an individual’s hostility and aggression. Aggressive games would lead to a habit whereby students prefer to play the games rather than engage in physical exercises.

This is even related to overweight. Children who are used to video games tend to be indifferent and unresponsive to the sufferings of other children. They would easily bully their fellow students without mercy.

Finkel, S. (1995). Causal analysis with panel data. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage

Griffith, M. (1999). Violent video games and aggression: A review of the literature. Aggression and Violent Behavior , 4(2), 203-212.

Sakurai, S. (1984). Construction of the Social Desirability Scale for Children. Japanese Journal of Educational Psychology , 32(2), 310-314.

Wiegman, O., & van Schie, E. (1998). Video game playing and its relations with aggressive and pro-social behavior. British Journal of Social Psychology , 37(2), 367- 378.

• Chicago (A-D)
• Chicago (N-B)

IvyPanda. (2019, December 8). Effects of Video Games. https://ivypanda.com/essays/effects-of-video-games/

"Effects of Video Games." IvyPanda , 8 Dec. 2019, ivypanda.com/essays/effects-of-video-games/.

IvyPanda . (2019) 'Effects of Video Games'. 8 December.

IvyPanda . 2019. "Effects of Video Games." December 8, 2019. https://ivypanda.com/essays/effects-of-video-games/.

1. IvyPanda . "Effects of Video Games." December 8, 2019. https://ivypanda.com/essays/effects-of-video-games/.

Bibliography

IvyPanda . "Effects of Video Games." December 8, 2019. https://ivypanda.com/essays/effects-of-video-games/.

• Issues of Overweight and Obesity
• Obese in the Society
• Do Violent Video Games make People Violent?
• Video Games and Violent Behavior
• Do Violent Video Games Lead to Aggressive Behavior?
• Overweight and Obesity Among Children Aged 11-14
• Violent Video Games and How They Affect Youth Violence
• The Effects of Violent Video Games on Individuals
• Overweight and Obese Children in Miami Dade County
• The Relationship between playing Violent Video Games and Children’s Aggressive Behavior - What do the Evidences Show?
• Child Thinking and Learning New Skills
• The Ecology of the Family
• Different Behaviors in Children With Autism
• Childhood Evolution and History
• Child and Adolescent Behavior: Becoming Attached

University of Utah Hospital

General questions.

• Billing & Insurance

You are listening to Healthy Kids Zone :

The Video Games Your Child Plays Has an Effect on Their Behavior

More and more research is emerging with evidence of the negative effects violent video games have on children. The most popular video games are also some of the most violent, and pediatrician Dr. Cindy Gellner speaks about the numerous effects they have on kids. If you notice behavioral problems and other issues with your child, video games with violence and other adult themes may be to blame. Listen to learn about the research and more.

Episode Transcript

With in-person activities for kids on hold a lot during the past year, video games have taken the place of ways for kids to connect while being socially distanced. Is this a good thing? Well, that depends.

Video gaming has become a popular activity for people of all ages since the 1980s. Many kids spend large amounts of time playing them, although the American Academy of Pediatrics recommends kids have more than two hours total of screen time a day. Video gaming is a multi-billion dollar industry, and video games have become very sophisticated and realistic. There are multi-player games, which allow kids to play with their friends across different platforms. However, there's always the possibility that kids can connect with not-so-friendly people out there, too.

While some games have educational content, many of the most popular games emphasize negative themes. They promote the killings in war-like scenarios, sometimes criminal behavior, disrespect for the law and other authority figures, sexual exploitation or violence towards women, racial, sexual and gender stereotypes, and foul language and obscene gestures. Examples of video games not acceptable for children because they have these themes include Grand Theft Auto, Call of Duty, and Mortal Kombat.

There is growing research on the effects of video games on children. Studies of children exposed to violence have shown that they can become immune or numb to violence, imitate the violence they see and show more aggressive behavior with greater exposure to violence. Studies have also shown that the more realistic and repeated the exposure to violence, the greater the impact on children. Kids can become overly involved and even obsessed with video games, which I've been seeing a lot lately, especially in kids who are doing only online learning.

I have parents often asking me how to get their kids off of video games and back onto their classwork. Unfortunately, I don't have any special tricks. But the best thing is to have them do their classwork where you can see them and know what they are doing. Also, check their grades frequently. And if you see a lot of missing assignments, then it's time to limit the video games until school is caught up. Too much video game can lead to poor social skills, time away from family, school work and other hobbies, lower grades, reading less, exercising less, becoming overweight, and having aggressive thoughts and behaviors. I can say that I have definitely seen and heard from parents that decrease grades and increase weight have been directly correlated to kids staying inside and playing video games over the past year.

So how can you, as a parent, protect your child against these types of video games? First, you can check the Entertainment Software Rating Board ratings to learn about the game's content. Every video game will actually have a label on the front to tell you what type of game it is. If it says M for mature, it's not for your child. Our kids have their system set up so they can't purchase a game, even if it's free, without me getting a notification. They're usually pretty good about saying, "Hey Mom, can I get this game so I can play with my friends?" And if it's not one I approve of, they know it's a hard no. We also have it set up in the living room so I know exactly how much time they're playing, what they're playing, and who they're playing with if it's on a group chat.

You can also play the video games with your child to experience the game's content and know exactly what your child is playing. Set clear rules about the game's content for both playing time in and outside of your home. Like if they go to a friend's house. Strongly warn your children about the potential serious dangers of Internet contacts and relationships while playing online. It's sad, but there are a lot of online predators that will look for children specifically playing video games and can lead them into them meeting in real life. Finally, remember that you are a role model for your child. Make sure the video games you play as an adult are ones you would be okay with your child playing.

If you are concerned as a parent that your child is spending too much time playing video games or your child starts becoming obsessed with aggressive or violent video games, make sure you set some limits. Expect some push back because you're going to get it. But kids actually need and want boundaries, and if you set them, eventually they'll surprise you and they'll appreciate that you do monitor them and that you do set limits. I was floored when both of my boys told me that at different times over the past year, that they approved the limits and the monitoring because they know that it's because of what we prioritize in our house and what our family expectations are.

By being aware of what games are out there, who your child is playing with, and what they care playing, and how long they are playing, you can help your child make appropriate decisions about gaming. Video games are a great outlet for some kids, and it helps them connect with their friends when they can't always play in person or when they're older and play dates aren't cool anymore. Most important thing as a parent is to be aware of what your child is doing while gaming and help reinforce positive behaviors and socialization without giving in to excessive gaming time and inappropriate content.

updated: August 9, 2021 originally published: April 6, 2016

More Episodes

• Understanding the Risks of Teen Marijuana Use
• Exercise as a Prescription for Children's Mental Health
• Screen Time and Speech Delays in Toddlers
• Fentanyl Overdoses Are Increasing Among Teens. What Can Parents Do?
• Teens, Social Media, and the Trouble with Self-Diagnosis
• How to Help Your Child with School Phobia
• Do Children Need Fiber?
• Supporting Your Teen After a Suicide
• What's Normal When Your Kid Has a Stomach Bug?
• Diagnosing ADHD in Kids

Home — Essay Samples — Social Issues — Violence in Video Games — How Violent Video Games Are Making Troubled Kids

How Violent Video Games Are Making Troubled Kids

• Categories: Video Games Violence in Video Games

About this sample

Words: 1969 |

10 min read

Published: Feb 9, 2022

Words: 1969 | Pages: 4 | 10 min read

Cite this Essay

Let us write you an essay from scratch

• 450+ experts on 30 subjects ready to help
• Custom essay delivered in as few as 3 hours

Get high-quality help

Dr. Karlyna PhD

Verified writer

• Expert in: Entertainment Social Issues

+ 120 experts online

By clicking “Check Writers’ Offers”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy policy . We’ll occasionally send you promo and account related email

No need to pay just yet!

Related Essays

5 pages / 2086 words

6 pages / 2508 words

1 pages / 627 words

2 pages / 858 words

Remember! This is just a sample.

You can get your custom paper by one of our expert writers.

121 writers online

Still can’t find what you need?

Browse our vast selection of original essay samples, each expertly formatted and styled

Related Essays on Violence in Video Games

The notion that video games cause violence has been a topic of debate and concern for many years. However, a wealth of research challenges this belief, suggesting that the relationship between video games and violent behavior is [...]

Video games have become an integral part of modern society, with millions of people across the globe engaging in gaming activities. Despite the widespread popularity of video games, they are often criticized for their negative [...]

In his book "Fist Stick Knife Gun," Geoffrey Canada explores the cycle of violence that plagues many inner-city neighborhoods, particularly among young African American males. Canada draws from his own experiences growing up in [...]

Video games have become increasingly popular in today's society, offering both positive and negative effects on consumers. This essay will focus on the negative effects of exposure to violent video games on children's behavior [...]

Since video games entered homes in the 1970s, video game popularity has exponentially increased and the different varieties of gaming have become widely diverse ranging from apps on a mobile device to massive scale worlds [...]

Bavelier, D., Green, C. S., & Seitz, A. R. (2013). Learning through action video games. Nature, 12, 135-138.Chang, Y. C., & Huang, Y. M. (2015). Learning by playing: A cross-sectional descriptive study of nursing students’ [...]

Related Topics

By clicking “Send”, you agree to our Terms of service and Privacy statement . We will occasionally send you account related emails.

Where do you want us to send this sample?

By clicking “Continue”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy policy.

Be careful. This essay is not unique

This essay was donated by a student and is likely to have been used and submitted before

Download this Sample

Free samples may contain mistakes and not unique parts

Sorry, we could not paraphrase this essay. Our professional writers can rewrite it and get you a unique paper.

Please check your inbox.

We can write you a custom essay that will follow your exact instructions and meet the deadlines. Let's fix your grades together!

Get Your Personalized Essay in 3 Hours or Less!

We use cookies to personalyze your web-site experience. By continuing we’ll assume you board with our cookie policy .

• Instructions Followed To The Letter
• Deadlines Met At Every Stage
• Unique And Plagiarism Free

Israel-Gaza latest: Israel withdraws almost all ground troops from southern Gaza; Iran issues threat to Israeli embassies

Today marks six months since the 7 October attacks by Hamas that left more than 1,100 Israelis dead and prompted Israel's ongoing military operation in Gaza, which has killed more than 33,000 people. We'll be bringing you updates on this throughout the day.

Sunday 7 April 2024 12:01, UK

• Israel-Hamas war

Please use Chrome browser for a more accessible video player

• Israeli military withdraws almost all ground troops from southern Gaza
• Today marks six months since the 7 October attacks
• Iranian official says Israeli embassies are no longer safe
• Four Israeli soldiers killed in Gaza
• Hostage's body recovered by Israeli military
• Biden puts pressure on as ceasefire talks begin
• Podcast: Should the UK stop selling arms to Israel?
• Live reporting by Josephine Franks

Iran's semi-official ISNA news agency has published a graphic showcasing what it said were nine different types of Iranian missiles capable of reaching Israel. 

Tensions appear to be ratcheting up between the two sides, and a short while ago an Iranian official warned that no Israeli embassy is safe. 

US officials said on Friday that they were on high alert about the possibility of a significant Iranian strike on targets inside Israel. 

Iran has blamed Israel for a deadly attack on the Iranian consulate Damascus, Syria, last week that killed at least seven officials. 

Among those killed was atop commander in Iran's elite Revolutionary Guards (IRGC). 

Satellite imagery reveals the extent of the destruction at Gaza's al Shifa hospital after six months of war. 

These images collected by Maxar show the hospital in June 2022, long before the war began, compared with earlier this week. 

Israel withdrew its troops from the hospital on Monday after a two-week raid, leaving behind destroyed buildings and dead bodies. 

A senior Iranian official says none of Israel's embassies are safe any more, after a suspected Israeli strike on the Iranian consulate in Damascus.

Twenty-eight Israeli embassies around the world temporarily closed on Friday due to fears of reprisal from Iran, the official said. 

Yahya Rahim Safavi, an adviser to the Supreme Leader, said the attack was a "violation of international laws".

Seven members of Iran's Revolutionary Guard were killed in the 1 April attack, with Iran vowing retaliation. 

With ceasefire talks due to begin today in Cairo, Sky News spoke to Israeli government spokesperson Avi Hyman.

Despite an announcement this morning Israel has withdrawn almost all ground troops from southern Gaza, Mr Hyman said Benjamin Netanyahu would "absolutely" go ahead with a ground invasion of Rafah.

"If we don't go ahead with Rafah, we lose the war."

He said Israel was "ploughing ahead" with its aims to destroy Hamas, bring the remaining hostages home and "ensure that Gaza doesn't pose a threat to us".

Asked what the point was in joining ceasefire talks when Israel was committed to a ground invasion, he said: "We will do our absolute utmost to ensure that we keep up maximum military pressure against Hamas and we keep all the diplomatic channels open.

"Because remember, we freed about half of the hostages using that formula."

Incoming Irish prime minister Simon Harris tells Sky News what has happened in Gaza is "utterly reprehensible". 

He tells our  senior Ireland correspondent David Blevins : "It's appalling and it's grotesque.

"And we are seeing children being maimed and killed - innocent children. It is disgusting. It is despicable. And it must stop."

He says Ireland "will always speak truth to power", and calls for "an immediate ceasefire".

"The attack on aid workers was particularly, in my view, callous and chilling, and we will continue to call that out.

"We also, as a country, stand ready to play our part in a political process that brings about a two-state solution."

He adds: "This country, and indeed the UK, know a lot about the importance of peace processes.

"This ultimately requires a political solution that delivers a two-state solution."

The Hamas-run Gaza health ministry has released its updated figures for the number of Palestinians killed and wounded in six months of war. 

It says 33,175 people have been killed and 75,886 injured.

Boaz Bismuth, member of the Israeli Knesset (parliament) in Benjamin Netanyahu's party, has defended how Israel has managed the flow of humanitarian aid into Gaza. 

He tells Sky News aid is entering Gaza, but that the Israeli hostages held by Hamas have not seen doctors or the Red Cross, as "we don't know if they're alive or dead".

"We speak a lot of humanitarian [aid] in Gaza, forgetting humanitarian [aid for] our own people."

Challenged by Trevor Phillips on Israel's conduct, he says Israel allowed humanitarian aid "from day one" and that it respects international law.

He says Israel has allowed aid from air, land, and sea, and has opened up new aid corridors when asked by the international community.

"We are at war against terrorists. We're not at war against [the] civilian population," he declares.

The IDF withdrew all ground troops from the southern Gaza Strip overnight, after four months of fighting in the Khan Younis area.

Only one brigade remains and is tasked with securing the 'Netzarim corridor' that divides the Gaza Strip, according to a report from The Times of Israel. 

Israel had planned a ground invasion of the southern city of Rafah, where more than half of Gaza's 2.3 million population are taking refuge, claiming the city is a hive of Hamas's remaining strongholds.

It had been warned of "disastrous consequences" if it went ahead with the ground invasion - but until now did not seem to have been deterred from its plans.  

It is not yet clear whether the withdrawal will delay the long-threatened incursion.

The streets of Tel Aviv were thronged with protesters on Saturday as people angry with the Israeli government's handling of the war demanded a hostage deal and early elections. 

Some held up signs urging the government to do more to bring hostages home, with others carried placards reading "Half a year of hell". 

Facing rising rates of malnutrition, medics in Gaza are having to choose "between giving beds to trauma patients [with] horrendous wounds ... versus giving those beds to malnourished children", an aid boss tells Sky News. 

Chris Lockyear, secretary general of Medecins Sans Frontieres (MSF), says the narrative around the supply of aid has been "oversimplified". 

It's not just about the supplies, he tells Trevor Phillips, but also being able to move it around the Gaza Strip, and having "medics who are qualified, fed, in a mentally fit state to be able to treat patients".

He also points to the state of hospitals and healthcare facilities, alleging they are being "systematically attacked and targeted in this really horrendous and disproportionate war".

Mr Lockyear says the airdrops of aid into Gaza, as well as the opening of a maritime corridor, are "an admission of failure that we haven't been able to get humanitarian assistance into the Gaza Strip in the amounts that is needed".

Be the first to get Breaking News

Install the Sky News app for free