Blog 5

Violence in video games is a controversial issue that has developed in the past few decades with the rapid growth in visual graphics and the rise of more violence in media. While some people say that video games cause the aggressive behavior some children may exhibit, I believe that video games are not the root cause of their violent attitude. I feel too much blame is put on violent video games when other major causes go unnoticed or even ignored. While studies have shown that exposure to violent media does have some sort of effect on children ages 8 and lower because "they have not yet developed the ability to discriminate fully between fantasy and reality in media content" (Bickham), I feel this should not even be a problem since children this young should not be exposed to violent games at all. While some research may point out that children in their teens are still affected by the violence in video games, I believe that their research methodology is inaccurate and thus their results are inconclusive. Douglas Lowenstein agrees with this claim stating, "There is not a shred of evidence in the academic literature to support the allegation that a violent video game leads to aggressive behavior in real life". He also goes on to say that many research groups define an increase in aggressive behavior as "an increase in aggressive play—such as mock battles or running around making believe you're killing aliens—with no intent to injure" (Lowenstein). This goes against the standard psychological definition of aggression and is therefore illogical to draw conclusions to the real world.

I feel an effective solution to the debate is to increase parental involvement in the video games children buy. Since it is nearly impossible for children under 17 to have enough money to buy the latest gaming system and games, parents must be the one supplying their children with this entertainment. While some groups suggest heavier regulation on the sale and production of games, I feel that this is an ineffective solution because legislators can have other motives to pass these laws. Christopher Ferguson gives an example of such a motive saying that if "such legislation is based on "concern for children," politicians can cast their opponents as being unconcerned with children while stripping parents of their rights to decide what media are appropriate for their children" (Ferguson). In addition more regulations only hurt gaming companies and game distributors while not serving their original intent of protecting children. If more parents are aware of what games their children are playing and their ratings given by the ESRB, then the issue of whether games meant for adults over 17 are harmful to an 11 year old is irrelevant. Laws attempting to protect the 11 year old from playing God of War are unnecessary since the power over children ultimately lies in the hands of the parents.