Violence Associated with Violence or What a Meta-Study Cannot Tell Us

A recent meta-study from Dartmouth College shows a association between real world violent behavior and violent videogames when played by people between the ages of 9 and 19, based on information drawn from more than 17,000 adolescents from all over the world.

The study was published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences and USA Today has a good summary and some statements from those involved in the process. And, although they state that even such a major study can only show a correlation and not a causation, I believe that they are pushing their findings a little too far.

When boiled down to its essence the meta-study (based on 24 previously pushed investigations) shows that exposure to violence leads to more violent behavior, which is surely a non-controversial statements regardless of whether it is linked to videogames, movies, music, the behavior of others or philosophy.

The authors state that the effect is relatively small and that there’s a doubling of the risk of a kid who plays violent games to be sent to the principal’s office during a eight month period. They state that they have controlled for other factors.

But the study has not done the most important work: a comparison between the effects of violent video games (which are relatively poorly defined) with other video game types, other kinds of media and maybe even exposure to violent speech or violent behavior by other people. If the risk associated with the video games remains higher then we need to have a conversation about the way we can limit exposure or the way sale can be curbed to make sure that the most vulnerable people are not affected by violence.

If the link between violent videogames and violent behavior is similar to that between violent movies and violent behavior then we need to have an even wider analysis of how violence permeates society and what are the ways to eliminate it when it comes to those that can be influenced (what ages? what backgrounds? which kinds of exposures?).

Videogames Can Educate About Violence, Public Needs to Be Educated About Them

Violence is an inescapable element of human existence. Violent crimes, especially those involving firearms, are an inescapable fact of modern life. Videogames are becoming one of the most popular forms of entertainment of those who life this modern life. And there are plenty of people who see a direct link between titles like Call of Duty or The Evil Within and people who pick up a gun and decide to kill.

We can and we should work to reduce their impact and the incidence of violent acts in our societies but we cannot do that by finding scapegoats or by working against entire industries because of links that have not been conclusively proven by science.

The so called Videogame Summit that president Donald J. Trump conducted last week was, as reported by the Washington Post, a solid if limited attempt to see how video games developers and the people who represent their interests can interact with the political establishment in order to maybe reduce the propensity towards violence that exists in society. The meeting might have kicked off with a montage of context free shocking moments from modern titles but it’s a good sign that there was no tone of incrimination that emerged from the main participants.

There are no solid studies that show causation between violence videogames and violence in the real world but there are some, disputed but used by certain groups, showing some correlation between the two. Banning sales of titles and limiting access has already been tried and seems like a non-starter on legal grounds but the ESA, the ESRB and governments can work in order to find a way to make it easier to educate individuals about what they play, how they approach their experiences and monitor how their understanding of the world and even behavior is affected.

Panic and recrimination are not the responses that can solve a crisis but they can help stakeholders find ways to reconcile positions and find new ways to work together. In the case of violent videogames and violent acts the best idea is to educate those who create them, those who market them and those who consume them.

On its own Call of Duty (to use a name that means something even to non-gamers) will not drive someone to acquire a weapon and do something criminal. But the game coupled with conspiracy theories, limited support networks, ideologies that degrade fellow humans, unrestricted access to firepower and other factors can lead to very different and violent outcomes.

The videogame industry cannot on its own work to make sure that every player is grounded and understands that virtual violence should not be translated to the real world. But it can share information and data with the government and other groups to try and make sure that information and education is available to players and that they can make a clear distinction between what they do in Call of Duty and how they go about their lives once their exit their favorite shooter or horror title.