TheChez.net

When I was younger, I would go over to my neighbor’s house and enter his basement which we called the ‘Battle Zone.’ We would bring in our two competitors, a stuffed frog and a stuffed bear. Then, we had to decide on which popular franchise we were going to imitate. We chose from a wide array of violent types – Power Rangers, Mortal Kombat, Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles or professional wrestling. Once decided, we inflicted as much pain as possible to the “evil” frog and bear. While throwing the bear and frog across the ‘Battle Zone,’ we would pretend to have super powers to supplement our flurry of punches and kicks. It was our favorite thing to do.  This sort of thing would seem atrocious to some parents and normal to others. We were boys, but it was violence plain and simple and we took it directly from video games and TV. Nonetheless, my neighbor and I had successful athletic and academic careers leading into college. Our youthful violent behaviors have not come back to bite us. The problem is children’s parents, not the video games. Negligent parents do not provide a moral standard that their children need to separate right, wrong, reality and imagination.

In order to determine why parents neglect their children, we must distinguish good and bad parents. It is quite difficult to define a good parent. It is easier to identify characteristics of good and bad parents. This can tell us what to do or what not do while raising a child. Good parenting derives from an empathetic relationship that has parents enjoying their child’s enjoyment. Good parents need to find the right balance between emotional care and behavioral management. One without the other leads to offensive or fragile individuals. Most parents have natural predispositions of these basic skills, but many skill inefficiencies are natural also (Behr, et al., 1997, pp. 1-2). These skills need to be applied when a child is being exposed to violence, regardless if it’s in a video game. In addition to the balance mentioned, children require many more necessary components. They have to be cared for, protected, nurtured, controlled, developed, taught and motivated. It is the proper balance, assessment, and action of these components that makes a good parent (Behr, et al., 1997, pp. 21-27).

Even though people may know how to be a good parent, it may be difficult to actually be one. Today, American families are structured differently, but they are not to be compared with the “ideal” families of the 1950’s that didn’t exist. The perfect family is a myth used to address current family problems (Coontz, 1992, pp. 8-9). There is one difference that isn’t debatable: today, it is common to find both parents employed compared to a single parent. Only 13% of all families in 1987 had male breadwinners and female housewives (Frankel, 1993, p. 13). This trend stems from the emergence of feminism that destroyed the housewife image. Today, there are independent women that earn a salary. “The dramatic increase in maternal employment has been labeled the most significant labor force development of the last half century” (U.S. Bureau of the Census, 1990). Female independence advances humanity, but it may affect children. While without parents, children are vulnerable to violent video games or television. Parents who are more involved would be able to teach their children the difference between right and wrong. Due to dual employment, video games and television are the figures of moral authority. The dangers of maternal employment are evident since men are unwilling to sacrifice their role as breadwinners. Video games become the parents; leaving children to be parented by such things at such an impressionable age is just asking for trouble.

Maternal employment, along with fast-paced modern society, creates separation between parents and their children. Often, a child is cared for by someone other than his parents such as a daycare. Psychologist Selma Fraiberg feels that children “who are delivered like packages to neighbors, to strangers, in storage house[s]” increase the “disease of nonattachment” (Quoted in Doudna, 1982). A study in 1995 showed that six in seven day cares are a threat to a child’s intellectual and emotional development (Eyer, 1996, p. 176). At times, it may be necessary to do such things in order to work and earn money for survival. It is also natural to feel compelled to work, but a parent must realize why he or she is working. Parents need to understand that their children have non-material needs that are also important. “Dr. John Munder Ross, a clinical psychologist and co-author of Father and Child: Developmental and Clinical Perspectives, is among those who warn that a mother who returns to work too early can lose empathetic contact with her child” (Berg, 1986). Parents are misguided by providing for the material life of their children rather than their emotional life.

Either a father or a mother needs to sacrifice and stay home, because a parent needs to be present in order for the child to develop properly. According to Moore’s longitudinal study of British children, “[S]ons of working women were more fearless and aggressive but less sensitive, fastidious, and conforming than sons of non-working women” (Moore, 1975). They need either parent. A person can do this job, whether it is the father or the mother. The role of breadwinner is customarily for men and society is unwilling to change. It is of no question that a father can do these roles just as the mother always has. I know a family that has the reverse of the “traditional” roles. Both work, but the father does the laundry and the cooking while the mother is the primary breadwinner. Besides that one case mentioned, the problem is that men do not increase their number or household duties as women increase their employment (Shelton, 1990), (Meissner, Humphreys, Meis, & Scheu, 1975). Regardless, one parent, or grandparent, must be present to teach morals. If parents don’t teach them morals, children are vulnerable because they’re at a very impressionable age. Violent video games can be great examples for parents to teach their children morals and ethics. These examples are usually repeated to a child without proper explanation and it can have disastrous results. It takes time to sit down with your child, play his games, and explain them. It’s not something that can be left unattended. Although some dual-employed parents successfully raise their children, many parents do not possess the ability to accept dual-employment’s additional challenges.

Meanwhile, rating systems and laws are left to govern what children watch and play. The Entertainment Software Ratings Board, or ESRB, is an organization that rates content in video games. It labels games according to their respective target audiences. Some labels, such as Mature and Adult, have legal restrictions that don’t allow teenagers under the age of 17 or 18 to buy the game. Parents are usually unaware that this system even exists and it is not very effective. It is easy to avoid the system, and once the game is owned; there are no other preventative measures. Parents need to stop depending upon the ESRB ratings systems and get involved with their children. They need to play these games with their children, learn about their interests, and judge whether or not it’s appropriate given their age. A barrier severely limits this situation as parents are currently behind the times when it comes to technology. “[Y]oung people have increasing less contact with adults [.] This has led to the creation of a segmented youth culture that is often unknown, misunderstood, and dismissed by older adults” (Sternheimer, 2003, p. 43). Things are changing, but as of right now parents are too intimidated to delve into technologies with their children and very little know what their children are actually playing. They could be playing a brain-twisting puzzle game or they could be assassinating a witness to protect the Mafia. It is not violence alone that can cause problematic children, but violence that is without parental guidance.

In order to properly address violent video games, it is important to know their history. Violent video games were first introduced in the West by Peter Kauffman, founder of Exidy Games and creator of Death Race. In the game, players controlled a vehicle to run over gremlins which were commonly mistaken for people due to limited graphical capabilities. This caused heated debate and even drove sales (Kent, 2001, pp. 90-92). The East, on the other hand, never was and still isn’t into violent video games. A vast majority of violent video games are American made, and it was an American game that started the modern debate. In September 1993, a game by the name of Mortal Kombat was released for the Sega Genesis and the Super Nintendo Entertainment System (Super NES). The Genesis version greatly outsold the Super NES version because it sported red blood and the graphic fatality moves while the Super NES version was edited. As a result, Nintendo instigated political attention on the game and before long, Mortal Kombat was the concern at a congressional hearing. The hearings led to the formation of the IDSA, a precursor to the ESRB. They started many investigations to discover whether violent video games affect children. All of this occurred because Sega was outselling Nintendo. The funny thing is that even more violent games such as Doom and Wolfenstein 3D were not even mentioned during the hearings (Kent, 2001, pp. 466-478). According to some psychologists, even games like Super Mario Bros. can be considered violent, but it was Doom, Quake and Wolfenstein 3D that introduced modern video game violence as we know it today (Kent, 2001, p. 471). As evidenced by the more violent version of Mortal Kombat for Genesis, violent games sell. They sell because people are attracted to violence. After their introduction, there was no stopping them.

Game likes Mortal Kombat ignited a parental and political crusade that sought to remove video games from shelves.  It gave video games a bad reputation as a fledgling industry that was just beginning to grow. This and the book titled Video Kids: Making Sense of Nintendo by Eugene F. Provenzo, Jr. started the anti-video game movement. In it, Provenzo states, “There are no conscientious objectors in the world of video games; there is no sense of community; there are no team players. Each person is out for himself. One must shoot or be shot, consume or be consumed, fight or lose.” (Provenzo, 1991, pp. 118-119). The truth is that video games are not all violent. While some do have realistic violence, others are only surrealistically violent. The debate lies with realistically violent games. Furthermore, modern games with increased graphical capabilities have increased realism which leads to even more controversy in the modern debate.

The debate exists because violent video games have been found to have adverse effects on children. Viewing violence, in any form, has been found to increase blood pressure which can create a predisposition for aggression (Zillman, 1971). The difference between video game violence and passively viewing violence is interactivity. Video games, unlike any other form of media, require the person to actively perform violence. Parents are primarily concerned that their children will imitate the games they play. Various studies were performed on children of different ages. Collegiate video gamers were found to have increased hostility as they played games for longer amounts of time (Anderson & Ford, 1986). Other studies have reported similar results, and they all relate increased aggression with extended playtime. One study showed that only young girls increased their aggression after playing a violent game. Another study, however, showed that all children who played a violent game demonstrated increased aggression towards peers and toys in a subsequent social environment (Gunter, 1998, pp. 96-99). Others argue that only ‘pretend’ aggression is measured rather than actual aggression. The children aren’t actually angry, but are just simulating it to imitate the game (Gunter, 1998, p. 101). These studies were done primarily on children, but a study on teenagers found that they had no aggressive tendencies after playing violent video games (Winkel, Novak, & Hopson, 1984). Maturity seems to play a role, but there have been matured individuals that press this hypothesis.

The first of a group of school shootings started in 1997, but it was the Columbine High School massacre that received the most media attention. Two students at Columbine High School, Eric Harris and Dylan Klebold, killed 12 students, one teacher, and injured 23 others. The finger was quickly pointed towards video games because the two killers were obsessed with the violent video game, Doom.  Harris was so enamored by the game that he created custom level designs. Their infatuation with Doom led many to believe that this is the source of their violence.  In a video talking about their plans, Harris, while holding a sawed-off shotgun, shouts, “It’s going to be like fucking Doom, tick, tick, tick, tick… Haa! That fucking shotgun is straight from Doom.” Parents and the media instantly made the connection.  Columbine set off a firestorm of events that had activists seeking an end to violence in media. Harris and Klebold were known to be bullied, but instead of looking at their social and family lives, everyone blamed Doom.

For someone without peer acceptance, video games represent open arms. “[V]ideo game play is socially isolating and prevents children from developing social skills” (Zimbardo, 1982). Games don’t argue, they’re submissive, and they’re interactive. They don’t judge a person based on their looks, ethnicity, gender, or lifestyle. They’re perfect social substitute that treats all people equally and fairly. Games have the ability to be ‘electronic friends’ (Selnow, 1984). They’re also a great outlet for anger. Psychoanalytical theorist, Mart H. Klein, attempted to identify why people play violent games:

The themes of these games appear to be center around the oral sado-masochistic fantasies of the fear of engulfment accompanied by its complementary reaction: aggressive tendencies. In the space games you shoot them before they shoot you; in Pac-man you must eat them before they eat you; and in the comic character games you must assault the creatures before it assaults you. (Klein, 1984)

The reason that people constantly relate violent behavior to violent video games is misguided. It just so happens that mentally disturbed individuals, such as Harris and Klebold, use video games as an outlet. Video games give a person significance that he may not experience otherwise.

I do believe violent video games can affect children, but in order for this to occur, many variables must be in place. Children must be without proper care and instruction.  They must have prior problems, specifically poor parenting, to allow something as trivial and insignificant as a video game to alter their morals, ethics, and tendencies. It is possible for these situations to coexist and they have. Parents must realize that children will imitate what they see, but it should not alarm anyone. Once they mature, childish behaviors should cease. I used to be very rambunctious along with my neighbor especially in the ‘Battle Zone.’ It was a lot of fun, but I don’t attack stuffed animals anymore. This came through maturity. If a teen is past maturity and still shows aggressive, childish behavior, it is rooted in something other than video games. They’re not even the sole source of violence, which is omnipresent and unavoidable. It is in books, sports, movies, video games and everyday life. We use it in sports such as wrestling and boxing. Even in history class, much of the content is devoted to significant violent events. I played violent video games, and I’m still aggressive person, but I have the ability to channel it for the positive. I’m aggressive in conversation, sports, and the classroom. I do not attribute my aggressive behavior to games but rather to my parents. My father pushed me into sports even though I showed no interest. My mother and brother both have aggressive personalities. People need to look outside the box and into the mirror.

Although critics claim games have adverse effects, they have many benefits.   Games require cognitive skills to be played correctly (Gunter, 1998, p. 71). Parents should be more worried if their child can’t play a video game. Games improve spatial relations, the ability to transform objects in the mind. They have trial and error learning with direct feedback rather than learning through instruction. They can simulate dangerous situations and teach children how to handle them. They improve self-worth and cooperation. Many friendships have been formed because of common video game interests. Games greatly improve cognitive skills, but it’s not easy for parents to see this (Gunter, 1998). Believe it or not, games do have many positive aspects.

Nevertheless, violent video games have been labeled as terrible influences on our youth, but critics have failed to view this debate from another angle. Instead of violent video games causing increased aggression in children, it could be that aggressive children are drawn to violent video games. With or without video games, some people are more aggressive by nature compared to others. As I researched the topic, I found that researchers usually look at aggression levels of children ex post facto. Since video games are so common, it may be hard to study children that don’t play games at all. Furthermore, it may be impossible to find aggressive children that live in a household with good parenting that do not play video games. There is an assumption of parents and critiques alike that aggression is somewhat unnatural and that it must be caused by something. They look for a source rather than realizing that these children may actually be naturally attracted to violent video games. Although the youth of today may be more desensitized than yesterday, the world is different.

The world is less violent now compared to humanity’s history. We don’t have the blood-sports of ancient Rome or the savagery of Hammurabi’s code in civilized society. Violent video games can’t be blamed for violence that existed before video games existed.  All creatures, let alone people, are violent by nature. The philosopher, Thomas Hobbes, said it best: “the life of man, solitary, poor, nasty, brutish, and short” (Hobbes, 1976, p. 86). People are violent by nature; it is not learned. Violent video games are just an excuse, because there have been many violent people that didn’t play video games. They could have had an abusive or negligent parent. Their family life could have been mentally damaging. Instead of blaming the parents, we find external influences to blame. We find things that the children resorted to in order to escape from their life. It could be games, toys or television. When a problem occurs, the parents are usually examined along with external influences. But because evidence of how parents treated their children is more difficult to find than a copy of Doom or Mortal Kombat, video games are hastily blamed. The worst part of it is that parents support the notion because they get off the hook! Which child-abusing parents wouldn’t want to blame video games after their child shot up a school? They know full-well that they didn’t treat their child the way he ought to have been treated. Violent video games are a concern for some, but an excuse for others.

Bibliography

Anderson, C., & Ford, C. (1986). Affect of the Game Player: Short Term Effects of Highly Mildly Aggresive Videogames. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin , 390-402.

Behr, D. H., Braun, D. D., Cox, K., Douglas, J., Dwivedi, D. K., George, D. D., et al. (1997). Enhancing Parenting Skills: A Guide for Professionals Working with Parents. New York: John Wiley & Sons, Inc.

Berg, B. J. (1986). The Crisis of the Working Mother: Resolving the Conflict Between Family and Work. New York: Summit Books.

Coontz, S. (1992). The Way We Never Were. New York: BasicBooks.

Doudna, C. (1982, June). The New Madonnas. Savvy , p. 37.

Eyer, D. (1996). Motherguilt: How Our Culture Blames Mothers for What’s Wrong with Society. New York: Times Books.

Frankel, J. (1993). The Employed Mother and the Family Context. New York: Springer Publishing Company.

Gunter, B. (1998). The Effects of Video Games on Children: The Myth Unmasked. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press Ltd.

Hobbes, T. (1976). Leviathan. Forgotten Books.

Kent, S. L. (2001). The Ultimate History of Video Games. New York: Three Rivers Press.

Klein, M. H. (1984). The Bite of Pac-Man. Journal of Psychology , 399.

Meissner, M., Humphreys, E., Meis, S., & Scheu, W. (1975). No exit for wives: Sexual division of labor and the cumulation of household demands. Canadian Review of Sociology and Anthropology , 424-459.

Moore, T. (1975). Exclusive mothering and its alternatives: The outcome to adolescence. Scandanavian Journal of Psychology , 255-272.

Provenzo, J. E. (1991). Video Kids: Making Sense of Nintendo. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.

Selnow, G. (1984). Playing Video Games: The Electronic Friend. Journal of Communication , 148-156.

Shelton, B. (1990). The distribution of household tasks: Does wife’s employment status make a difference? Journal of Family Issues , 115-135.

Sternheimer, K. (2003). It’s Not the Media: The Truth about Pop Culture’s Influence on Children. Boulder: Westview Press.

U.S. Bureau of the Census. (1990). Statistical abstract of the United States. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office.

Winkel, M., Novak, D., & Hopson, H. (1984). Personality Factors, Subject gender, and the Effects of Video Game Content on Aggression in Adolescents. Houston: Presented at Southwest Psychological Association meeting.

Zillman, D. (1971). Excitation Transfer in Communication-mediated Aggressive Behaviour. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology , 153-159.

Zimbardo, P. (1982). Understanding Psychological Man: A State of the Science Report. Psychology Today , 15.