By, Natasha Ward

Cultural Biases

“To understand just what the Games are about, it is really necessary to investigate the roots and the meaning that has transformed culture and society for so many years.” – Bill Toomey (2005), 1968 U.S.A.Olympic Decathalon Champion (p. 1)

Attempting to understand the world of video games is much like playing a video game. It is a treacherous journey laden with a variety of obstacles; a war zone. The division of gamers and non-gamers, both containing academic professionals, is so profound that one should note the location of the emergency exits immediately upon entering. Social stereotypes abound and poor research methods shed little insight into the effects of video games.

On one side of the battlefield, advocates of video games tenaciously support a theory that video games increase intelligence as well as problem-solving, strategy, and hand-eye coordination skills. Supporters claim that a video game can prove to be a more adept learning tool than a book or a more satisfying family affair than a board game (Johnson, 2005; Gee, 2004; Simons, 2005). On the other side of the battlefield, critics ferociously argue that exposure to video games, more specifically, violent video games can cause individuals to express and act upon aggressive feelings. This leaves researchers grappling with one question. Who is right?

While the battle lines are continuously being redrawn, the social stigmatization of video games is increasing, driven by a popular, unsubstantiated claim that video games cause aggression and aggressive behavior. Undoubtedly much of this criticism results from sensationalized, negative news publicity. Critics must look beyond this stereotype to gain a broader understanding of the effects of video games or be at fault for bias in the technological age.

Health Pack

“It is patently obvious that children are not normally turned into aggressive little monsters by TV or video games, since most children do not become aggressive little monsters.” - Hugh Mackay (2005), Australian Author (p.1)

While various studies have attempted to prove a direct correlation between violence and video games, most have been either unsuccessful or unreliable. Jeffrey Goldstein (2001) states “almost no studies of violent video games have considered how and why people play them, or why people play at all” (p. 2). In a rush to prove the negative effects of video games, researchers have failed to account for possible psychological factors such as depression, anxiety, and other antisocial behaviors which may influence violent behavior.

In his article “Video Game Violence and Public Policy,” David Walsh (2001) analyzes and interprets data from video game research. According to Walsh, experimenters Ballard and Weist (1996) saw “Heart rate, systolic blood pressure, and diastolic blood pressure all increase while playing violent games” (p. 2). Essentially, this study maintained that exposure to violence (“blood”) in the video game Mortal Kombat caused elevated physiological arousal in the individual. While heart rate and blood pressure are symptoms of physiological arousal, they do not testify to the mental health or willingness of a video game player to act violently.

The primary difficulty in successfully diagnosing the effects of video games is the “moral barrier.” Moral barrier is a term used to identify pre-existing moral or ethical values in an individual that differ from those values presented in video game media. For example, while a video game player may feel comfortable shooting a soldier in a combat simulator, they may not feel comfortable holding a gun or shooting another person in reality. For this reason, evaluating and systematically proving that an individual will commit a violent crime as a cause-effect relationship to video games is almost, if not entirely impossible. Social cognitive theorist, Albert Bandura states:

People not only display substantial variability in their moral reasoning at any given period, but many years elapse from the time they first adopt a new standard of morality and when they come to use it as a preferred one. (p. 6)

Consider for a moment that persons who ride roller coasters or bungee jump also experience an increase in heart rate and blood pressure. While the thrill-seeking individual may exhibit similar physiological arousal, their moral and ethical judgments are probably not impaired. Ask any video game player to justify his/her position. Most often the response is the same, although the wording changes. Sarah Walker, a student at Skagit ValleyCollege maintains, “I like it [playing video games]. I know that it isn’t real. It doesn’t mean that I am going to take a loaded weapon to school and shoot my classmates” (S. Walker, personal communication, October 7, 2004). The moral barrier prevents researchers from adequately assessing the validity of a link between video games and violence. What may encourage one individual to act aggressively, may not encourage another.

A video game research study (Anderson and Dill, 2000) conducted on college students produced yet another set of ambiguous results. Students were asked to play individually either a violent (Wolfenstein 3D) or non-violent (Myst) video game, after which they participated in a game with another research participant. The follow-up game allowed the winning student to administer a “noise blast” to the losing student. The duration of this blast was calculated for both those students exposed to violent and non-violent video games. Ultimately, researchers found that students who had played the violent game administered an average noise blast of 6.81 seconds while those who had played a non-violent game averaged noise blasts of 6.65 seconds. Anderson and Dill concluded that many of the research participants experienced an, “increase [in] accessibility of aggressive thoughts and aggressive behavior but did not reliably [experience an] increase [in] state hostility” (p. 786). This is a superlative example of the moral barrier. Participants were willing to experience aggressive thoughts and behaviors in the surreal context of the video game world, but did not as readily allow themselves to do so in the real world. This implies an exchange of individual morals and values based on environmental and cognitive factors. Kurt Squire (2002), an assistant professor at the University of Wisconsin Madison, agrees:

To suggest that a .16-second increase in duration of a noise blast is qualitatively the same as committing mass murder is not only an illogical leap, but a disservice to the worthwhile enterprise of studying what are the root causes of tragic events like school shootings or youth violence. (p. 2)

Another plausible concern resides with the procedural methods of the experiment; placing any individual in a position to act or behave more aggressively is likely to produce encouraged results.

However, it is becoming clearer that those adolescents who are predisposed to depression, anxiety, and other psychological disorders are impacted more greatly by the violence presented in video games. Lynch (as cited in Walsh, 2001 ) observed that children who exhibited greater hostility levels were more likely to experience heightened amounts of testosterone and adrenaline while playing a violent video game. While this research ascertained some quantitative effects, it neglected to consider the pro-social and antisocial behaviors of participants. Since those children with high hostility scores are less likely to display positive pro-social behavior, there is a significant possibility that many of the research participants were 1) antisocial and 2) living with a pre-existing psychological disorder. Given the presence of these disorders any child would be more susceptible to violence. Maressa Hecht Orzack, a computer addiction specialist at Harvard University maintains, “These are not just your ordinary citizens who play a game for a while and suddenly turn violent. The ones who become violent are out-of-control to begin with. Other problems exist” (as cited in Tresniowski, Morrissey, Anderson, Wilstach, and Rozsa, 2005).

Another external factor that must be considered while researching video games is the quality of parental involvement. Gentile (2004) reported that eighth and ninth grade students believed that their parents rarely placed time limits on their video game usage. In addition, 53% of the research participants believed that their parents “never” used the ratings system when considering the purchase or rental of a game. The ratings system used for video games is much like the system used for movies. Instituted by the Entertainment Software Rating Board, the system is used to classify which content is appropriate for persons of a particular age group and is divided into six categories: Early Childhood, Everyone, Everyone 10 +, Teen, Mature, and Adults Only. Many adults admit to feeling left in the dark when it comes to understanding video games. Iain Simons (2005) confesses, “those privileged enough to have access to these machines (teenagers) have been frantically developing a new literacy, those on the outside (parents) have grown suspicious” (41). Unfortunately, the parent-child gap resulting from new technology hinders a parent’s ability to effectively moderate their child’s video game habits.

For this reason, skeptical parents and eager children must tackle issues of tolerance and moderation. Parents need to know and understand what their children are interacting with. It is the parent’s discretion to choose a video a game for their child and to monitor the amount of its usage. Should a child who suffers from anger management issues play an epic war game simulator for eight hours? Probably not. Should a child who suffers from obesity be left sitting alone at a pot-luck table? Probably not. Food can be good for you and so can video games. Moderation is key.

While video game research has been unable to prove a correlation between aggressive behavior and violent video games, parents should ensure that this technology is used moderately. Perhaps the addiction to video games presents more of a problem than the violence contained within them. Until further credible research has been conducted, critics must try to approach this new and expanding technology with an open mind. Otherwise, critics risk unfairly dismissing a large growing industry and population based solely on specious research.

Popular Video Game Myths

“The… [presumed] effects of media violence, similar to those previously attributed to westerns, radio serials and comic books, are easy to exaggerate.” - Hugh Mackay (2005), Australian Author (p.1)

While many people would agree that youth violence is a problem, the U.S. Department of Justice and Bureau of Justice Statistics has recorded a steady decrease in violence. In fact, according to the National Crime Victimization Survey results, the actual number of serious violent crimes committed in 2004, 1,648,100, is a sharp decrease from the actual number of serious violent crimes committed in 1973: 3,590,300 (p. 1). The data in the chart below [Figure 1] shows the amount of violent crime committed yearly from 1973-2001, correlative to the release of video games and video game systems. The decline in violence seems to suggest a popular cathartic experience. It is probable that as people are increasingly exposed to video game media, they are presented with more opportunities to release aggression. Consequently, violent crime statistics would decrease.

Figure 1:

Figure 1: John L. Sherry, Research on Violent Video Games and Aggression: A Translation, Date Unknown (2003 or later), Michigan State University, 15.

John L. Sherry (Date Unknown), an assistant professor at Michigan State University comments:

There are at least three conclusions that can be drawn from these data: 1) that video games have little or no effect on natural trends in crime; 2) that the presence of video games caused a decrease in the amount of violent crime; and 3) that crime would be even worse if video games were not introduced. (Violent Video Games and Aggression: A Translation p. 15, 16)

What many people believe has become a growing epidemic, is in all actuality, a fallacy. What contributes to this false notion? The media.

Recently, the video game Grand Theft Auto: San Andreas has received negative publicity for a downloadable expansion that unlocks sexual content within the game. Although this news is only weeks old, the popular Grand Theft Auto franchise by Rockstar has been targeted by the media before. In June of 2003, when 18-year-old Devin Moore shot and killed two cops and one dispatcher in Fayette, Alabama,Grand Theft Auto: Vice City was considered to be the catalyst (Tresniowski et. Al., 2005). Moore’s attorney Jack Thompson argued, “He [Moore] played it [Grand Theft Auto: Vice City] hundreds of hours, which is primarily a cop-killing game” (as cited in Bradley, 2005, p. 1). Moreover, after the shootings Moore was overhead explaining, “Life is like a video game. Everybody’s got to die sometime” (as cited in Tresniowski et. Al., 2005, p. 1).

While the media hype surrounding Moore’s case continued to grow, including a special on CBS’ “60 Minutes,” facts surrounding the case were glossed over. For instance, Devin Moore suffered from post-traumatic stress disorder resulting from negative childhood experiences (Tresniowski et. Al., 2005). Yet, most news articles only briefly touched on this fact. Consider for a moment that the headline, “PTS Sufferer Kills Cops” is not nearly as entertaining as “Grand Theft Auto: Kills Again.” CBS’ electronic version of the “60 Minute” special regarding Devin Moore’s case, “Can A Video Game Lead To Murder?” makes no mention of post-traumatic stress disorder, nor any other psychological disorders that may have encouraged Moore to commit his crimes. Instead, one can read the following, “Moore had no criminal history, and was cooperative as Strickland booked him inside the Fayette police station. Then suddenly, inexplicably, Moore snapped” (Bradley, 2005, p. 2). Were Moore’s actions really that sudden or inexplicable, or were they the result of an underlying psychological disorder? Walsh, a relatively moderate critic of video games, was interviewed by CBS regarding Moore’s case. Walsh stated:

You know, not every kid that plays a violent video game is gonna turn to violence. And that’s because they don’t have all of those other risk factors going on. It’s a combination of risk factors, which come together in a tragic outcome. (as cited in Bradley, 2005, p. 3)

Despite the defense’s attempts to exonerate Moore, he was convicted on August 9, 2005 of capital murder and later sentenced to the death penalty by lethal injection. The jury had only deliberated for a little over an hour. Interestingly enough, the Associated Press headline read, “Blaming Video Game Fails For Murder Defense” (2005, p. 1).

Due to the fact that the televised media plays a significant role in how people interpret symbols and objects, several myths have developed regarding video games. Some of those include: 1) Most video games are played by children. Fact: In 2005, the average age of the video game player rose to 34 years (as cited in Oser, 2005, p. 2). 2) Females don’t play video games. Fact: 65% of computer game players are female and 35% of television console game players are female (as cited in Oser, 2005, p. 2). 3) Playing a video game contributes to antisocial behavior. Fact: Henry Jenkins, an MIT Professor states, “Almost 60 percent of frequent gamers play with friends. Thirty-three percent play with siblings and 25 percent play with spouses or parents” (p. 3).

Video Game Intelligence

“The books I’ve written for gaming companies are…like games of miniature golf where the object is to weave an interesting story through an obstacle course.” – Lynn Abbey (n.d.), American Author (p.1)

While much of the United States population has written off video games as a “harmful, silly teenage hobby,” video game supporters are working arduously to redefine the video game revolution by revealing potential advantages. Goldstein (2005) urges that “youngsters are willing to expose themselves to unpleasant [video game] media images because the benefits of doing so outweigh the costs” (p. 9). According to Goldstein, there are many more advantages to playing video games than there are disadvantages. For this reason, children continue to be attracted to video game media. Some of the possible benefits resulting from playing video games include, but are not limited to, enhanced problem-solving, strategy, and hand-eye coordination skills. It is important that critics consider these benefits before imposing a generalized, stereotyped bias upon members of the video game community.

Playing a video game requires that an individual interact, learn, and interpret an imagined reality. Ultimately, this interaction gives the player the building blocks necessary to learn and enhance valuable skills. For example, while it is a relatively simple task to learn the button configuration used to make a character move or participate within a game, learning how to manipulate a game’s environment to produce positive results can be considerably more difficult. It may take hours or days to discover how to conquer, achieve, or reach a goal within a game. Video game developers are not secretive about this design. Famous for his creation of the popular computer game “The Sims,” Will Wright (2002) comments that “we give them a rich environment with goals embedded in it” (as cited in Brown, p. 2). Often times, these goals help to further a story line or encourage a player to use his/her imagination to solve tasks. In a review of Steve Johnson’s book, Everything Bad Is Good For You, Malcolm Gladwell (2005) details:

Players have to explore and sort through hypotheses in order to make sense of the game’s environment, which is why a modern video game can take forty hours to complete….The game presents the player with a series of puzzles, and you can’t succeed at the game simply by solving the puzzles one at a time. You have to craft a longer-term strategy. (p. 2)

In fact, some of the goals that are present within a video game are so intricate and complicated that many gamers purchase a game’s strategy guide. A strategy guide is a detailed book filled with screen shots of levels, and hints and tips related to winning the video game. Nearly every video game that is available to consumers has a corresponding strategy guide that is available for individual purchase. Douglas Perry, a reviewer for the online video game website IGN.com comments on the difficulty of the game Manhunt for Playstation 2: “It’s hard, but it’s a great challenge. One thing I love about its steep learning curve is that it’s never, ever cheap. If you die, it’s because you messed up” (2005, Rank#10 “Manhunt”). The prospect of winning encourages a player to come back to a game time and time again, while the challenging parts of a game facilitate the growth of important skills.

As gamers rush to achieve goals within a game and move one step closer to finality, problem-solving and strategy skills increase. The video game player must work adamantly, sometimes under stressful conditions, to achieve an end. Michael Wade and John C. Beck (2005), researchers for Harvard Business School and co-authors of the book ­­Got Game, unveiled evidence that video game players are more prepared for and capable of success in the business world because they have been taught the critical thinking skills necessary to achieve positive results (Anonymous, PC Gamer, p. 1). The study maintained that, “gamers have been ‘trained’ to relentlessly overcome problems, work their way out of corners, and never accept defeat” (Anonymous, PC Gamer, p. 1).

One can more easily recognize the potential for increased problem-solving and strategy skills when taking a closer look at the video game, The Legend of Zelda: The Wind Waker. In order to “win” or complete, The Legend of Zelda: The Wind Waker, players must defeat difficult enemies, also known as level bosses. A “level boss” is typically the hardest opponent to overcome within a level. It is available for combat only after a player has successfully navigated throughout most of the level and it must be defeated before a player can move onto a subsequent level. Successfully defeating a level boss can involve the following:

a) A quick survey of the area to determine: possible hiding spots that might help the player avoid an opponent’s attacks and positions that might allow the player a significant advantage over his/her opponent

b) Through a series of attacks, the player eliminates the opponent’s possible weak spots and discovers where the opponent is most vulnerable

c) Through a series of attacks, using various weapons, the player discovers which weapon he/she must wield to inflict the most damage or to create a desired effect

d) As an opponent repeatedly attacks the player, the player learns when the opponent will strike and what type of attack it will use (magic, melee combat, etc.)

Steve Johnson (2005) states “Talented gamers have mastered the ability to keep all these varied objectives alive in their heads simultaneously” (p. 54). This allows a player to move seamlessly from one action to the next. In addition, players must adapt to physical annoyances such as: faster and more frantic music scores and a vibrating controller when the player’s character is hit or when health is low. When considering some of these processes and actions, it becomes more apparent that learning is occurring. James Paul Gee (2004) concurs:

The game encourages him [the player] to think of himself [as] an active problem solver, one who persists in trying to solve problems even after making mistakes; one who, in fact, does not see mistakes as errors but as opportunities for reflection and learning. (p. 44)

Many researchers may concede that learning is occurring while playing a video game, but disagree as to the type of learning. While critics argue that players are being programmed towards aggressive thoughts and behaviors, supporters of video games argue that players are learning problem-solving, strategy, and hand-eye coordination skills. As the conflict between these group’s increases, biases must be constrained and tolerance must persevere. People need to learn to accept this new media at some level or risk discriminating against those that do accept it.

Game Over

Perhaps the more viable, yet, vague answer to the video game conflict is that both groups are correct. It is more reasonable to ascertain that if one type of learning is occurring, there is a significant probability that another type of learning is also occurring. Mike Witmer, a professor at Skagit Valley College (2005) states, “Every experience has some affect on a person” (M. Witmer, personal communication, November 7, 2005). Is the potential to learn violence buried within a video game? Possibly. Is the potential to learn problem-solving skills buried within a video game? Possibly. Increased problem-solving skills do not override or decrease the potential for violence and vice versa. It is possible to be both violent and intelligent. Ted Kaczynski, the infamous “Unabomber” is a prime example.

While skepticism of video games is warranted to some degree, because there are not any clear answers in the video game revolution, it does not warrant the negative treatment of video games. As a standard, most people do not critique or make judgments regarding a book they have never read. Yet, many people are quick to judge the child, the teenager, or the adult who finds video games pleasurable, without ever having played a video game themselves. Consider for a moment that many of the books made available to consumers can teach a person how to build a bomb or grow marijuana. Books are just as capable of encouraging deviant behavior as video games are. As with all forms of entertainment one should be cautious and skeptical. This does not mean people should stop reading. Nor does it mean that people should stop playing video games. People need to moderate their own behaviors and activities. Mike Witmer (2005) adds:

To be concerned about some fairly reasonable percentage of young people, spending some fairly reasonable percentage of their time doing something is always worth looking into. Whether it is riding a bicycle or reading novels, one has to wonder – what are some of the possible positive and negative aspects? (M. Witmer, personal communication, November 7, 2005).

Whether a person chooses to read a book or plays a video game is a matter of preference. One is no more right or wrong than the other.

The answers are out there for those who wish to look for them. It is a journey of understanding. Understanding requires patience, the willingness to learn, and an open mind – skills that are repeatedly used and explored while playing a video game.

References

Abbey, L. (n.d.). Lynn Abbey Quotes. Brainy Quote. Retrieved on November 30, 2005

from http://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/quotes/l/lynnabbey245427.html

Anderson, C.A. & Dill, K.E. (2000). Video Games and Aggressive Thoughts, Feelings,

and Behavior in the Laboratory and in Life. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 78 (4), 772-790. Retrieved October 4, 2005 from

http://www.apa.org/journals/features/psp784772.pdf

Anonymous. (2005, January). Are the Kids All Right? PC Gamer. 34.

Associated Press. (2005). Blaming Video Game Fails For Murder Defense. MSNBC.

Retrieved October 13, 2005 from http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/8889445/

Bandura, A. (1991). Social Cognitive Theory of Moral Thought and Action. [Electronic

Version] Handbook of Moral and Behavior Development, 1, 45-103. Retrieved October 17, 2005 from http://www.vusst.hr/~berislav/phed/BanSCTMoral.pdf

Bradley, E. (2005). Can A Video Game Lead To Murder? CBS News / 60 Minutes.

Retrieved October 13, 2005 from http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2005/03/04/60minutes/main678261.shtml

Brown, J. (2002, October 24). Payoff = Points: A False Equation [Electronic Version].

The New York Times.

Brown discusses the formula and design of video games. As gamers continue to move away from the arcade and into the home, new strategies are being developed to keep players “plugged in” to their video game systems. Games are no longer based on point systems. More intricate, open-ended game play allows gamers to interact in a virtual world. This article is important to my topic because it discusses the nature and intent of video game development.

Four Measures of Serious Violent Crime. (2005). U.S. Department of Justice and Bureau

of Justice Statistics. Retrieved October 13, 2005 from http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/glance/tables/4meastab.htm

Gee, J.P. (2004). What Video Games Have to Teach Us About Learning and Literacy

(New ed.). New York, NY: Palgrave Macmillan; New Edition.

Gentile, D.A. & Lynch, P.J. & Linder, J.R. & Walsh, D.A. (2004). The effects of video

game habits on adolescent hostility, aggressive behaviors, and school performance. Journal of Adolescence, 27, 5-22. Retrieved October 10, 2005 from http://www.cvm.uiuc.edu/courses/vp671/video%20game%20and%20school.pdf

Gladwell, M. (2005, May 16). [Review of the book Everything Bad Is Good For You].

Brain Candy [Electronic Version]. The New Yorker.

Gladwell reviews Steve Johnson’s book. Johnson discusses the correlation between the increases of the average IQ to the surge in media growth. Television shows and video games have progressed immensely to include intricate plotlines and interaction. He suggests that reading a book and playing a video game are equally valuable in that they help develop different parts of the brain. In addition, problem-solving skills increase. This article is important to my topic because it discusses the positive traits of playing video games.

Goldstein, J.H. (2001). Does Playing Violent Video Games Cause Aggressive Behavior?

Cultural Policy Center, University of Chicago. Retrieved October 6, 2005 from

http://culturalpolicy.uchicago.edu/conf2001/papers/goldstein.html

IGN Staff. (2005, April 27). The Top 10 Most Challenging PS2 Games of All Time.

IGN.com. #10, Manhunt. Retrieved November 3, 2005 from http://ps2.ign.com/articles/608/608086p1.html

Jenkins, H. (Date Unknown). Reality Bytes: Eight Myths About Video Games Debunked.

PBS. Retrieved November 5, 2005 from http://www.pbs.org/kcts/videogamerevolution/impact/myths.html

Johnson, S. (2005). Everything Bad is Good For You: How Today’s Popular Culture is

Actually Making Us Smarter. New York, NY: Penguin Group

Mackay, H. (2005). Is TV Violence All That Bad For Kids? The Age. Retrieved

November 30, 2005 from http://www.theage.com.au/news/Hugh-Mackay/Is-TV-violence-all-that-bad-for-kids/2005/03/04/1109700674787.html?oneclick=true

Oser, K. (2005, September 12). Game Enthusiasm Rises Up From The Basement.

Advertising Age, 76 (37), 51. Retrieved October 4, 2005 from Ebscohost.

Sherry, J. L. (Date Unknown, 2003 or later). Research on Violent Video Games and

Aggression: A Translation. Michigan State University. Retrieved November 5, 2005 from http://info.cas.msu.edu/icagames/violence.pdf

Simons, I. (2005, September 19). Come Out of the Bedroom. Newstatesman. 40-42.

Retrieved October 4, 2005 from Ebscohost.

Squire, K. (2002, July). Cultural Framing of Computer/Video Games. Game Studies.

Retrieved October 4, 2005 from http://www.gamestudies.org/0102/squire/

Squire criticizes the academic world for its unprofessional approach in studying violence in video games. Squire also makes some very interesting points, such as: “they [researchers] make wild illlogical leaps in linking very constrained behaviors in laboratories to violent acts where people really get hurt” (2). After reading this article I was able to more appropriately analyze the faults within Walsh’s paper. This article is critical to my paper because it dives into some very basic criticisms of researching video games.

Toomey, B. (2005). Getting Involved In The Olympic Movement. The Official Website of

Bill Toomey. Retrieved on November 30, 2005 from http://www.bill-toomey.com/Olympian/Olympic_Movement.html

Tresniowski, A. & Morrissey, S. & Anderson, J. & Wilstach, N. & Rozsa, L. (2005,

September 26). Driven to Kill? People 64 (13), 97-98 Retrieved October 4, 2005 from Ebscohost.

Walsh, D.A. (2001). Video Game Violence and Public Policy. Cultural Policy Center,

University of Chicago. Retrieved October 4, 2005 from

http://culturalpolicy.uchicago.edu/conf2001/papers/walsh.html

Walsh presents information for several studies regarding the effects of video games, including hostility levels and physiological tendencies. Walsh’s criticisms seem justified, however they also lack appropriate support. This paper is important to my research because it contains evidence that most research studies have not been properly administered and that perhaps society’s underlying stereotypes have helped stigmatize video games.

Tags: Aggression, Culture, Devin Moore, Health, Jack Thompson, Malcolm Gladwell, Media, Research, Stress, Vice City, Video Games, Violence