The Link Between Video Games and Violence

sparked a massive public debate around the world about what could have motivated and inspired two young boys (aged 17 and 18) to cold-bloodedly murder their fellow students. Amongst the myriad of accusations in the blame game that ensued emerged the fact that not only were Harris and Klebold hooked on the violent games Doom and Wolfenstein 3D, but that they had played a marathon session of Doom just hours before they carried out the massacre (Associated Press, 2000). Could there be a link?

The Columbine shootings were perhaps the event that first brought the possible side effects of violent video games into public attention, acting as a catalyst for further investigation into the matter. Once the ball was rolling, it took no time for the media to cotton on to the fact that there might be a link between the portrayal of violence in video games and copycat crimes perpetrated in real life, to the extent that games might even have been used as a scapegoat when other factors were to blame, such as in the case of the 14-year old from Leicestershire who was murdered by his ‘friend’ Warren Leblanc, 17, in 2004. The tabloids were happy to claim that Leblanc was inspired to carry out a sequence from the newly released game Manhunt, which was banned already in New Zealand for being notoriously violent. It turned out that the game was actually owned by the victim Stefan Pakeerah and not the perpetrator, but that didn’t stop several highprofile retailers from yanking the game off their shelves (Clarke, 2004, Evening Times)which lends credence to the premise that yes, people are actually associating gory video games with real-life violence.

In any case, there was no dearth of cases to suggest a scientifically relevant link between virtual and real life violence, of which quite a few seem to circulate around the notoriously violent (and immensely popular) game Grand Theft Auto III. The very name of the game would leave even a casual observer in little doubt about the criminal nature of what the player does in that title, but it is unlikely that the game’s developers and publishers would have thought in their wildest dreams that it would be used as the rationale behind the fatal shootings of three police officers at the hands of 18-year-old Devin Moore in June 2003, or for that matter the murder of a man and the serious injury of a female driver by Joshua and William Buckner, aged just 14 and 16, a mere two weeks later (Bradley, 2005, CBS News). Even more damning was the fact that the Moore himself admitted that the murders were inspired by the game at his trial, although

2

it can be argued that he was a) doing this to show himself as innocent and b) he was not in sound mental health.

With the media whole-heartedly supporting the cause-effect link between violent games and real-life brutality, legal and political activists couldn’t be far behind. Inspired by the knowledge that shooting ringleader Eric Harris had not only played Doom but actually created levels for it (these are now known as the ‘Harris levels’ and are quite widespread over the internet), the families of several Columbine victims filed lawsuits against id software- the creators of Doom- and other game publishers. These initial suits were unsuccessful, but the stage had been set (Etherington, 2005, bbc.co.uk). In the GTAIII- inspired Moore incident, attorney Jack Thompson, a long-time proponent of antigame legislation, brought out a civil suit against Rockstar games, the publishers, saying that teenager Moore was able to take down three Alabama State police officers because “he had been trained to do what he did- he had in effect been given a murder simulator”. Thompson went on to say that months of playing a ‘cop-killing’ game made Moore go on a rampage.

The fact that political candidates have seen the restriction of video game-violence as a worthwhile cause in their pursuit of more votes would seem to strengthen the popular notion that these contribute to actual crimes. In the United States, none less than presidential hopeful Hilary Clinton recently introduced a bill in the senate aimed at restricting the availability of violent/content-sensitive video games to children and teenagers, however both this and similar efforts by the EU have been deemed ‘unconstitutional’ as they impinge on creative freedom and have not been passed (Kawasaki, 2006, growFolio). In Britain however, games which depict high levels of violence are subject to clearance from the BBFC, which can impose bans and agerestrictions that are legally binding (Etherington, 2005, bbc.co.uk), in the same manner as other ‘video recordings’, i.e. film and DVD.

So if games are subject to the same (or similar) classifications as movies, how are they any different in the effect their brand of simulated violence has? The important thing to remember is the level of interactivity that a video game provides. Anderson and Murphy (2002, Aggressive Behaviour) state that it is this interactivity, particularly in the case of

3

First Person Shooters (games like Doom where the perspective is that of the player’s) that leads to a high level of immersion and thus provides a double-edged sword of escapism and identification which could lead to problems with defining the boundaries between real and virtual. According to Anderson (2003, Psychological Science Agenda) “the arrival of a new generation of ultraviolent video games beginning in the early 1990s and continuing unabated to the present resulted in large numbers of children and youths being rewarded for actively participating in entertainment violence that went way beyond anything available to them on television or in movies”.

Expert opinion on the subject however, is sketchy and the conclusions are all over the map (Wolock, 2003, Children’s Software and New Media Revue), a consequence perhaps of their relatively recent development and their struggle to find acceptance as a mainstream medium of entertainment. Psychologists generally seem to agree that there are negative consequences to watching violent movies and television shows, and a higher level of exposure to other forms of media violence may manifest itself as a preference for violent video games. (Funk, Hagan, et al, 2002, Aggressive Behaviour). Related studies then go on to suggest that such high levels of protracted and varied exposure to simulated violence contributes to a desensitisation to violence in real life with “an increased risk of aggressive behaviour” (Renfrew, 1997).

But is there a direct link that would implicate violent video games as the inspiration behind acts of brutality in real life? Anderson et al (2003, Psychological Science in the Public Interest) seem to think so- indicating that video games are even more likely to encourage aggressive behaviour than other media because (a) the games are highly engaging and interactive (b) they reward violent behaviour and (c) the said activities are repeated continuously over the course of gameplay. The structure of these activities is similar to a learning plan- so effectively, the game is ‘teaching’ youngsters to be violent. Anderson’s study also found that reducing the amount of time children play violent games reduces the amount of aggressive behaviour they display in school or other social contexts.

Wolock (2003, Children’s Software and New Media Revue), states numerous examples of studies where playing a violent video game has produced heightened levels of

4