Isaac Kinsinger

Brandon Alva

ENG 2010

4/8/19

A controller is not a gun! Or is it?

If you were to ask me (a gamer) when I started writing this if video games cause real

world violence or even mention that you think/believe they do I would be quick to tell you that

they didn’t cause any school shootings and that you should take what any news networks say

with a fine amount of salt. My belief on this comes from my experience playing video games

(some of them violent) from a very young age and that of my sister and cousins growing up with

this form of entertainment and that none of them are or have been unhinged time bombs

stockpiling weapons for the sake of committing mass violence. While I know where my opinion

comes from, I wanted something scientific to use in any arguments that I may get into on the

subject. So, I set out to find proof as to why I am right was I participating in a bit of confirmation

bias? Yes, but a house that is built on a weak foundation will surely crumble under stress and

the same goes for an argument with little backing and I needed to find some.

My search led me to the article “Viewpoints and Flashpoints in the Study of Video Game

Violence and Aggression.” Written by Cheryl K Olson and Lawrence Kutner (will use (Olson Pg.#)

for references and quotes) that at first glance appears to talk about the history of research on

this topic .Immediately in the introduction it says that studies about the effects of violent media
can date back all the way to the late 1920’s and that the 966 articles studied in an analysis had

unremarkable findings. I think “Yes not only are these pointless but I also have evidence that

people have always feared violent media” but I kept reading. When talking about approaches to

research the paper references a book written in 1999 co authored by a retired Lt Col in the

United States army who was a psychology instructor at the West Point Military Academy which

made a claim (disproved) that a school shooter in Kentucky learned how to shoot solely

through practice with video games (Olson Pg. 3). When I heard that I seriously questioned if this

guy was in the army; I mean this guy should know how to train with a gun and gun controllers

back then were just wired pieces of plastic with triggers and simple electronics that at the most

just vibrated a little and made a firing sound nowhere near loud enough what a real firearm

would make and if this guy thinks playing duck hunt trains you how to use a pistol then how did

he get in? While seeing how these people are morons is one thing this doesn’t exactly prove my

point that video games don’t cause violence. Further along I came this statement that really

proves my point, to quote the paper

“ In a four-year longitudinal study of Canadian adolescents in grades 9 to 12, the researchers

found that violent video game play predicted higher levels of aggression over time, even

controlling for non-violent game play and overall frequency of video game play. The effect was

small, linking ongoing violent game use to a less-than-onepercent increase in later aggressive

behavior”(Olson Pg.6). One percent, that small of an increase to aggressive behavior not violent

behavior but aggressive behavior is what some researchers have found, if one percent is what is

what it takes to push someone over the edge than they should already be kept a close eye on.

At this point I felt like I seen enough to feel pretty comfortable in my opinion, but like I said
before I am participating in confirmation bias if I don’t see my opponent’s argument than I’m

not really any better.

I soon found a unique argument I never seen before it comes from an article titled “Who

hearkens to the monster’s scream? Death, violence and the veil of the monstrous in video

games” written by Carly A. Kocurek (Kocurek) that talks about how mitigation of video game

violence through different blood colors and other means dehumanize people like propaganda. I

am immediately annoyed at this article in the first sentence “The practice of rendering on-

screen victims monstrous is a long-standing one”(Kocurek Pg. 1) on-screen Victims? Really you

see what is just a bunch of pixels and a computer program as victims and are deserving of

sympathy? Wow you are desperate. Anyway, she talks about some history of these techniques

and then moves on to some examples of more recent games. Using a Lego Indiana Jones game

as an example she says that because every living thing is made of Lego pieces and breaks apart

upon death “amplifies the entire franchise’s willingness to treat certain lives as

inconsequential.” (Kocurek Pg. 4). If we are expected to believe that toys can make us believe

other people are worthless than should we also believe that we can just kill someone in just a

few punches and will do little to fight back? Moving on to “Serious Sam 3: BFE” a game that

surprisingly doesn’t have an ESRB rating( as far as I can tell) but would likely have an M 17+ only

rating based upon other entries in the series she says that the games blood and gore options

two of which are hippie and kiddie coupled with the games high level of violence make

committing it not something to regret but something to enjoy even though the blood options

are satirical in nature against censorship (Kocurek Pg.5). Given the games intended audience

and unrealistic feats acted out by the player character I don’t see how this is propaganda or this
is meant to dehumanize she doesn’t even say how it is only talking about its violence. In all the

propaganda I have seen there is a clear message meant to go with dehumanization and without

one (as these game fail to provide) this all seems coincidental. None of this has convinced me

but there is a statement that got me interested “The research into the effects of playing violent

video games has been largely inconclusive (Ferguson and Kilburn 2009), but most of that

research has focused on violence generally and not interrogated the impact of particular

representations”. What research is there that isn’t focused on violence? I need to find out.

My now quest for alternative research led me to this paper “Moral License in Video

Games: When Being Right Can Mean Doing Wrong” written by Morgan E Ellithorpe and four

other people (Ellithorpe). From the abstract I am intrigued and a little confused. It states that

moral choices in video games can affect how violence can affect us and I’m thinking how can

violence be affected by moral choices? If its just how moral choices in games can affect us that I

can understand but I can’t see how violence comes into play here. They conducted an

experiment (bear with me it’s a lot) where participants played a violent video game under the

pretense that the experiment was about reaction times but where told to make a moral

decision in the game, some where told to adopt a more popularly moral deontological (Save

one life) or less popularly moral utilitarian (greater good) mindset and others were coerced.

Then they had participants compete against a computer but were told it was another

participant and lost immediately and were blasted with noise and had to decide a cash reward

for their opponent and then won and lost 12 more times measuring retaliatory

behavior(Ellithorpe Pg. 2-3). According to results those who made the utilitarian decision were

less retaliatory to the computer and vice versa in order to maintain a moral balance(Ellithorpe
Pg. 4). After all this information I could only wonder why there wasn’t more like this neat and

interesting bit of alternative research out there but I caught this in the conclusion “The effects

of violent video games that contain simulation of moral behaviors is therefore not cut-and-

dried, but instead a complex process with outcomes depending on gameplay experiences and

perceptions.” (Ellithorpe Pg. 5). Why does it come back to violence it was hardly mentioned or

considered in the experiment why is it always about violence? Maybe that is the question, why

is it whenever video games are talked about it is almost always about violence?

When I found one, I was not particularly happy. I discovered an article written by Allen

Copenhaver and others (Copenhaver Pg.#) titled “For Video Games, Bad News Is Good News:

News Reporting of Violent Video Game Studies”. In it they talk about the effect games have

saying “the association between violent video game play and fighting in adolescents was only

modest and not statistically significant once additional demographic variables were

controlled.”(Copenhaver Pg.2) And “ Research in potentially ‘‘at-risk’’ populations such as

individuals with neurodevelopmental or psychiatric conditions did not support the hypothesis

of their vulnerability to video game violence effects.19,20 Any association between violent

video game play and players’ aggression thus appears less straightforward than previously

suggested; single explanations such as desensitization21 seem unlikely”(Copenhaver Pg.2) and

how many of studies that paint video games in a negative light are of poorer quality. When I

read the parts stating that politicians use poor quality studies that fuel video game fear and

news media likely draw attention to these studies for profit particularly “News agencies are

responsible for determining what types of stories exhibit ‘‘newsworthiness,’’ therefore,

journalists would select those elements more likely to generate public interest and lead to
increases in revenue”(Copenhaver Pg.2) I’m reminded of two of Nolan Chomsky’s five filters.

Ownership: mass media are corporations where the end goal is profit, and The Common

Enemy: where a bogeyman is feared to corral public opinion. They then did a study where they

see if the kinds of studies mentioned are more likely to receive attention from the media and

the results worry me “4 This seems to suggest that findings of a negative effect of violent video

games’ exposure, rather than a large effect size or high methodological quality, increase the

chances for a study to receive attention in the academic field as well as news media

coverage.”(Copenhaver Pg.4). But is it really like that? I’m going to have to find out myself.

I ran an experiment with members of my family. First, I showed them a news clip talking

about how the Sandy Hook shooter was influenced by violent video games and another

terrorist (News, CBS) and gauged their reactions. Then I read them parts of an article reading

from the final report from Connecticut’s state attorney typically that the shooters game

obsession was with Dance Dance Revolution( Caldwell) and see how their view changed.

I started with my step brother Andrew who grew up with video games and is a gamer like me.

After watching the news clip, he said that they were jumping to conclusions when the

investigation was still open and millions of other kids have played these games and where fine.

Post article he stated “. I think its full of crap his violent actions weren’t inspired by violent

video games if he was obsessed with Dance Dance revolution and when there was other

evidence suggesting he had sociopathic behavior and was obsessed with this other murderer.”

His father and my step-father Marty raised him and several other kids so he is familiar with

games. Post Clip: : “it’s sad that this happened. I can’t say that’s the cause because lots of

people play video games and don’t go postal. He had excessive compulsive behavior and
determined for something. That guy in Norway wanted to be famous this kid had nothing.” Post

Article: “Violent video games were not the cause it was his psychotic mind.” My sister Tara

grew up with games with me but is not a gamer herself. Post Clip: “it’s sad he went after kids

which is sick and wanted to play a numbers game. I don’t think they are responsible but can

have an influence but was already messed up.” Post article: “He had some sort of obsessive

disorder he was obsessed with killing and Dance Dance Revolution to much of anything can be

bad.” Lastly my mother who has been a pharmacist for decades who never had to worry about

games corrupting her children. Post Clip: “: I think the lady on the interview said it doesn’t

cause it it fuels what was already there.” Post Article: “There was already there was an already

underlying pathological disorder that games may have had a small effect. He was already a

killer.”

My family may not be on this crazy train of fear because our experience together taught us, we

don’t need to be scared but I cannot say the same for others. But that needs to change; if we

never stop seeing these overreactions to poor studies saying games will train us into vicious

killers the majority of the populace may never get to see the alternatives that could gives us

better understanding and help us have video games violent and not into our lives in a safe and

reasonable matter. Fear for ourselves and our loved ones is a completely natural occurrence

but it could also make us blind to the rational facts that we don’t need to worry over as it

unfortunately has for at least the past 20 years. I as a gamer say that alternative research in

video games must take a higher priority in reporting and we have to stop seeing controllers as

guns and look at different causes of violence in the world.

References:

Caldwell, Maggie, et al. “Sandy Hook Crime Report: Adam Lanza Obsessed with Mass Murder

and Dance Dance Revolution.” Mother Jones, 24 June 2017, www.motherjones.com/crime-

justice/2013/11/what-we-learned-sandy-hook-crime-report/.

Copenhaver, Allen, et al. “For Video Games, Bad News Is Good News: News Reporting of Violent

Video Game Studies.” CyberPsychology, Behavior & Social Networking, vol. 20, no. 12, Dec.

2017, pp. 735–739. EBSCOhost, doi:10.1089/cyber.2017.0364.

Ellithorpe, Morgan E., et al. “Moral License in Video Games: When Being Right Can Mean Doing

Wrong.” CyberPsychology, Behavior & Social Networking, vol. 18, no. 4, Apr. 2015, pp. 203–

207. EBSCOhost, doi:10.1089/cyber.2014.0599.

Kocurek, Carly A. “Who Hearkens to the Monster’s Scream? Death, Violence and the Veil of the

Monstrous in Video Games.” Visual Studies, vol. 30, no. 1, Mar. 2015, pp. 79–89. EBSCOhost,

doi:10.1080/1472586X.2015.996402

News, CBS. “Sandy Hook Gunman: Did Violent Video Games Play a Role?” YouTube, YouTube,

19 Feb. 2013, www.youtube.com/watch?v=a12RdmqtroM

OLSON, C. K., and L. KUTNER. “Viewpoints and Flashpoints in the Study of Video Game Violence

and Aggression.” Psychology: Journal of the Higher School of Economics, vol. 12, no. 1, Jan.

2015, pp. 13–28. EBSCOhost,

search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=asn&AN=102769170&site=ehost-live.