73
Warning! Below you will find an analysis of the argument 'Videogames cause violent behaviour.' This is a scholarly essay, so do not expect this to be a light read. Similarly, this is an argument analysis, not an argument. I am not making a case for either side, simply presenting both sides of the argument for readers to evaluate. All debate will be constrained to the comments. So, without further ado, here is my evaluation.
For a gamer like myself, hearing others talk about gaming from the outside looking in has always been frustrating. As with many things in the past, there are many who rise too quickly to condemn the things they dono t understand. This has always been a trait that humanity has possessed, and it has brutally followed us through our history. However, the converse is true as well. Many gamers rise too quickly to attack those who would label gamers as lazy or make suggestions that video gaming has a negative effect on oneo s social capacity. And all the while beneath the noise of the argument on the surface, an emerging art form sits unnoticed. For if you really take the time to step back from whichever stereotype you hold about videogames, it is impossible to mistake the universes that development studios imagine for anything other than art.
Despite this, there is no doubt that there is a taint in the clear water of the video game industry. The argument that video gaming can and does lead to increased violence in gamers is not without precedent. The topic has made its way into politics, religion, and almost every other major debate field in the world. Positive correlation between video gaming habits and increased acts of aggression has indisputably been shown in many studies by top researchers around the world. So why does the question still remain? Can video gaming in fact lead to violence?
The truth is, it can. At least in part. In a study conducted by Craig Anderson and Brad Bushman of Iowa State University, a positive correlation coefficient of r = .27 was found between those who play videogames and increased aggressive cognition (Anderson, Bushman 358). According to a scale created by Jack Cohen in 1988 ranks as high-small or a low-medium correlation (356). Similar correlations between gaming and physiological arousal and gaming and increased aggressive behaviour were found, both ranked mid-small on Coheno s scale (357-8).
The argument is well established and clear. The results are posted with a confidence interval of 95%, leaving some room for error, although it is a very small window. A negative to this side of the argument is that it fails to discuss where its shortcomings are, almost as if the writers didno t see any problems with their argument. And there are several to be named, too. There is also some concern that the method of study is not narrow enough, however that will be discussed with the counter argument. From the standpoint of analyzing how well the argument covered what the researchers initially set out to discover, it passes with flying colours. So now the burden of proof falls on the other side of the argument.
From the above results, the link between videogames and increased aggression is established. By definition, increased aggressive cognition alone can translate into a violent action. This presents an immediate problem for anyone who would support the now counterclaim in this argument. With such substantial empirical proof that videogames and violence are linked, it is easy to be discouraged from making the case for the opposite side of the argument. However, ito s also easy to make the mistake of believing empirical evidence as truth, and this statement is the foundation of the counterargument.
A study conducted by Michael Ward of the University of Texas at Arlington takes this principle and tests not for a correlation between videogames and violence, but a correlation between other covariates and the sought result (Ward 611). From the counter argumento s standpoint, if it can be shown that there are other possible causes for the violence that is o associatedo with video gaming, then the counter argument can succeed in refuting it. Ward uses gathered Youth Risk Behaviour Survey (YRBS) responses in an attempt to show that other factors lead to violence more often than video gaming, and succeeds undoubtedly in what he set out to do.
Ward studies the relationship between youth fights and video game habits. The results of the study show that in youth who do not play videogames alone account for 31.94% of the total population field (Ward 620), while increasing percentages are shown as the amount of hours of gaming increases . The results, like those of Anderson and Bushman, show positive correlation between the amount of gaming and increased acts of violence, however Ward succeeds in showing that unaccounted for factors account for more instances of violence than any amount of video gaming. Throughout his analysis, he further streamlines these statistics through complex mathematical formulas which I cannot begin to understand. Finally, Ward arrives at the conclusion that any video game play actually reduces fighting by -1.23% (Ward 621), which shows results counter to the claim made by the opposing side of the argument.
A possible problem that Ward did not discuss was the combined results of gamers and violence vs. non-gamers and violence, for which the percentage actually exceeds that of the latter group. He does, however, acknowledge the link between videogames and an increased rate of violence. Another thing that Ward does well in his argument is that he directly cites the study done by Anderson and Bushman in 2001 while he is explaining the background of his side. Ward also takes the time to note possible problems in and for his argument, which is something that Anderson and Bushman did not. Overall, his argument is sound, and supports the counterclaim side of the argument well.
So what do these results mean? There is strong evidence for both sides of the argument. On one hand, undeniable evidence that video gaming can lead to increased aggression is presented, and on the other equally solid evidence that video gaming and physical acts of violence are less related than the opposing side suggests is shown. As with any engaging argument, the results are decisively left to those who have observed it.
How this applies to Minecraft:
"Everything is good in moderation."
The lesson is in moderation. As with anything, excessive use can and probably is a bad thing. In my opinion, the reason that videogames can lead to violent behaviour in gamers is that many gamers fail to properly moderate their time spent playing and their response to the game. The first study mentioned above discusses all kinds of violence, not just blood and gore violence. This includes cartoon violence like what you see in Minecraft. Just because a game like Minecraft isn't overly violent doesn't mean that it is exempt from this category.
So, fellow PMC-ers, I submit to you this advice: Use your time wisely, but most importantly strive to learn self-control.
So, now it's your turn. Comment below and tell me what you think. Am I right? Tell me how you agree. Am I wrong? Tell me where! See you in the comments.
For more writing like this, be sure to subscribe. If you think I made sense, diamond or favourite.
Cheers,
~Skipp
Works Cited
Anderson, Craig, and Brad Bushman. "Effects of Violent Video Games on Aggressive Behavior, Aggressive Cognition, Aggressive Affect, Physiological Arousal, and Prosocial Behavior: A Meta-Analytic Review of the Scientific Literature." Psychological Science. 12.5 (2001): 353-359. Web. 12 Mar. 2013.
Ward, Michael. "Video Games and Adolescent Fighting."Journal of Law and Economics. 53.3 (2010): 611-628. Web. 12 Mar. 2013.
Y'all did it again...
For a gamer like myself, hearing others talk about gaming from the outside looking in has always been frustrating. As with many things in the past, there are many who rise too quickly to condemn the things they dono t understand. This has always been a trait that humanity has possessed, and it has brutally followed us through our history. However, the converse is true as well. Many gamers rise too quickly to attack those who would label gamers as lazy or make suggestions that video gaming has a negative effect on oneo s social capacity. And all the while beneath the noise of the argument on the surface, an emerging art form sits unnoticed. For if you really take the time to step back from whichever stereotype you hold about videogames, it is impossible to mistake the universes that development studios imagine for anything other than art.
Despite this, there is no doubt that there is a taint in the clear water of the video game industry. The argument that video gaming can and does lead to increased violence in gamers is not without precedent. The topic has made its way into politics, religion, and almost every other major debate field in the world. Positive correlation between video gaming habits and increased acts of aggression has indisputably been shown in many studies by top researchers around the world. So why does the question still remain? Can video gaming in fact lead to violence?
The truth is, it can. At least in part. In a study conducted by Craig Anderson and Brad Bushman of Iowa State University, a positive correlation coefficient of r = .27 was found between those who play videogames and increased aggressive cognition (Anderson, Bushman 358). According to a scale created by Jack Cohen in 1988 ranks as high-small or a low-medium correlation (356). Similar correlations between gaming and physiological arousal and gaming and increased aggressive behaviour were found, both ranked mid-small on Coheno s scale (357-8).
The argument is well established and clear. The results are posted with a confidence interval of 95%, leaving some room for error, although it is a very small window. A negative to this side of the argument is that it fails to discuss where its shortcomings are, almost as if the writers didno t see any problems with their argument. And there are several to be named, too. There is also some concern that the method of study is not narrow enough, however that will be discussed with the counter argument. From the standpoint of analyzing how well the argument covered what the researchers initially set out to discover, it passes with flying colours. So now the burden of proof falls on the other side of the argument.
From the above results, the link between videogames and increased aggression is established. By definition, increased aggressive cognition alone can translate into a violent action. This presents an immediate problem for anyone who would support the now counterclaim in this argument. With such substantial empirical proof that videogames and violence are linked, it is easy to be discouraged from making the case for the opposite side of the argument. However, ito s also easy to make the mistake of believing empirical evidence as truth, and this statement is the foundation of the counterargument.
A study conducted by Michael Ward of the University of Texas at Arlington takes this principle and tests not for a correlation between videogames and violence, but a correlation between other covariates and the sought result (Ward 611). From the counter argumento s standpoint, if it can be shown that there are other possible causes for the violence that is o associatedo with video gaming, then the counter argument can succeed in refuting it. Ward uses gathered Youth Risk Behaviour Survey (YRBS) responses in an attempt to show that other factors lead to violence more often than video gaming, and succeeds undoubtedly in what he set out to do.
Ward studies the relationship between youth fights and video game habits. The results of the study show that in youth who do not play videogames alone account for 31.94% of the total population field (Ward 620), while increasing percentages are shown as the amount of hours of gaming increases . The results, like those of Anderson and Bushman, show positive correlation between the amount of gaming and increased acts of violence, however Ward succeeds in showing that unaccounted for factors account for more instances of violence than any amount of video gaming. Throughout his analysis, he further streamlines these statistics through complex mathematical formulas which I cannot begin to understand. Finally, Ward arrives at the conclusion that any video game play actually reduces fighting by -1.23% (Ward 621), which shows results counter to the claim made by the opposing side of the argument.
A possible problem that Ward did not discuss was the combined results of gamers and violence vs. non-gamers and violence, for which the percentage actually exceeds that of the latter group. He does, however, acknowledge the link between videogames and an increased rate of violence. Another thing that Ward does well in his argument is that he directly cites the study done by Anderson and Bushman in 2001 while he is explaining the background of his side. Ward also takes the time to note possible problems in and for his argument, which is something that Anderson and Bushman did not. Overall, his argument is sound, and supports the counterclaim side of the argument well.
So what do these results mean? There is strong evidence for both sides of the argument. On one hand, undeniable evidence that video gaming can lead to increased aggression is presented, and on the other equally solid evidence that video gaming and physical acts of violence are less related than the opposing side suggests is shown. As with any engaging argument, the results are decisively left to those who have observed it.
How this applies to Minecraft:
"Everything is good in moderation."
The lesson is in moderation. As with anything, excessive use can and probably is a bad thing. In my opinion, the reason that videogames can lead to violent behaviour in gamers is that many gamers fail to properly moderate their time spent playing and their response to the game. The first study mentioned above discusses all kinds of violence, not just blood and gore violence. This includes cartoon violence like what you see in Minecraft. Just because a game like Minecraft isn't overly violent doesn't mean that it is exempt from this category.
So, fellow PMC-ers, I submit to you this advice: Use your time wisely, but most importantly strive to learn self-control.
So, now it's your turn. Comment below and tell me what you think. Am I right? Tell me how you agree. Am I wrong? Tell me where! See you in the comments.
For more writing like this, be sure to subscribe. If you think I made sense, diamond or favourite.
Cheers,
~Skipp
Works Cited
Anderson, Craig, and Brad Bushman. "Effects of Violent Video Games on Aggressive Behavior, Aggressive Cognition, Aggressive Affect, Physiological Arousal, and Prosocial Behavior: A Meta-Analytic Review of the Scientific Literature." Psychological Science. 12.5 (2001): 353-359. Web. 12 Mar. 2013.
Ward, Michael. "Video Games and Adolescent Fighting."Journal of Law and Economics. 53.3 (2010): 611-628. Web. 12 Mar. 2013.
Y'all did it again...
| Tags |
tools/tracking
1986217
6
videogames-and-violence-is-there-a-link
StormWatcher
CrystalRuby
ScotsMiser
KongPlayz
PandaWonka
lampytbltofficial
ObisidianSMP24
The Gamers Club
The Sound Of Music
lisabit
Henry04alcalino
Create an account or sign in to comment.
Perhaps space it out a bit for some readers (extra spacing between lines, page break thingies); All of that clumped together wording tends to scare some readers away.
ie em turtle