Dr. Dahlia Keen Articles

Take 2 Joysticks and Call Me in the Morning (Part 1) (Part 2) (Part 3)
Gamedaily article link

Video games: Are they a pariah? A drug? A Panacea? Somewhere in between? It has become popular to blame video games for a lot of problems today. The general assumption is that video games, specifically violent video games, are bad and that they are somehow turning today's youth into violent criminals. In truth, research establishes that there is little if any evidence of a direct nexus between video game playing and violent behavior. This is not to say that they are completely innocent either because they are not. Video game playing has been associated with increased aggressiveness in certain "high risk groups" (APA, 2005; Funk, 2003), and reduced pro-social behaviors. This is a very different charge from that which they have been accused because video games are not creating violent criminals... what they are doing is acting as a trigger for violence in those with pre-existing violent tendencies (Olson, 2004). This article will discuss both sides of the controversy, and will examine some of the psychological processes that may be going on beneath the surface. This article will also discuss the benefits of playing video games and how newer interactive games may serve to neutralize the bad rap that certain games bear today.

Games as Pariah
Video games have been accused of many bad things. They have been implicated in influencing the thoughts, feelings and behaviors of some of our youth (APA, 2005). They have been known to affect "high risk" players, those who are especially vulnerable to the negative influence of these games. For them, these games may serve to perpetuate existing problems, create new ones, or fuel existing aggressive fantasies (Funk, 2003).
Investigators have not found any concrete profile of potential attackers, although some have postulated an association with past suicide attempts, suicidal thoughts, depression, male gender and sexual repression, and anti social parents (Olson, 2006).

Exposure to video games has been found to increase automatic aggressiveness in the short term, and repeated exposure to violent games has been found to contribute to longer term delinquency (Uhlmann and Swanson, 2004). They have been found to prime aggressive thoughts and feelings which prime aggressive or hostile behavior (APA, 2005). They have been found to create emotional, behavioral and cognitive desensitization which numbs the effects of violence, making aggression more expected and accepted (Anderson, 2003). These games have been noted to increase physiological arousal, increase paranoia, and fears of being victimized. They have been found to cause an epidemic of game addiction with a course similar to other addictions, with preoccupation, intoxication and withdrawal symptoms, proposing the need for Video Gamers Anonymous (Schlimme, 2002). They have also been found to teach the value of violence and to teach methods to execute violence as a means to resolve conflicts (APA, 2005). Most games present and teach exaggerated stereotypical gender roles and ethnic minority stereotypes, including sexualized aggression against women. They have also been found to reduce helpful and social behavior in some (APA, 2005; Uhlmann et al, 2004, Anderson, 2003). Moreover, video games have been blamed for changing the player's environments, such as their types of friends, as well as situations and opportunities made available to them, as well as contributing to social isolation (Anderson, 2003).

Violent video games influence people to the same degree as other media sources such as radio, movies, and television. The violence in video games has not been found to be more dangerous than violence in other mediums, although several factors about these games has led some to speculate that they could have more deleterious effects. Games such as Grand Theft Auto: San Andreas and Postal provide direct rewards for aggressive behaviors. The interactive and repetitive nature of these games makes them more conducive to learning aggressive behaviors (APA, 2005). It's like visual courage. Through a process called social cognitive theory (Bandura, 1977), (which was previously behavioral modeling or social learning theory) aggression can be learned. They watch, learn and model and evaluate what they see, and because aggression is rewarded in these games, (73% of crimes go unpunished and only 16% suffer financial or psychological penalties for bad behavior) the behavior is really encouraged (APA, 2005).

In these games, the player takes on a much more active and controlling role than in other passive mediums such as television and movies. This allows them to control their own playground and assume the violent role. According to the General Aggression Model (Bushman & Anderson, 2002; Anderson & Gill, 2000), when people rehearse violent actions, such as when playing violent games, they are more likely to remember the actions, find them acceptable and of utility, and use them in their interactions with others. Through a process of social comparison, (Festinger & Schacter, 1962) people consciously learn about their own abilities and attitudes by comparing themselves to similar others or role models. In the absence of any positive role models, people will compare themselves to almost anyone, or others that they perceive as being high status or attractive. These players will often compare themselves to the pernicious predator (human or demon) that is handling the situation well and winning the game. This upward comparison may make the player feel discouraged about their own capabilities, desires, and merit, and consequently act as if they were the predator so that the discrepancy between the two is minimal.

Identification with the aggressor follows, and is a well documented defense mechanism (Freud, 1966). It is an unconscious process whereby someone who has been victimized in the past, is motivated to rid themselves of this role and subsequently identifies with, and takes on the role of their aggressor. They achieve this by finding their own victim and watching someone act out that role so they don't have to. In these games where the player is clearly the inflictor, by attacking characters, or killing them off, the player is symbolically attacking or destroying those weaker ego-dystonic parts that they don't like about themselves, the parts that made them victims in the first place. They get to disown or project out unwanted aspects of themselves into the characters. They get to trade places. They get to escape themselves, experiment with a new identity, and explore unexplored aspects of the self (Turkle, 1995). For healthier players, who are unfamiliar with a violent atmosphere, the process and focus in these games can be very different. Instead of identifying with a vicious predator, their interpretation of the violence may be to survive and gain mastery over the evil, rather than become the evil. They may strive to be heroic, and protect others, rather than induce harm. For instance, gamers do not identify with the Nazi's that are trying to kill them. If anything, they learn to hate evil more. A plane full of gamers could stop terrorists.

It will also be important to understand how violence is interpreted in these games. Being able to critically evaluate these games is essential and may help to prevent identification with the aggressor and elucidate the differences between fantasy and reality (APA, 2005). Future research should look into the variables that contribute to identification with the aggressor. We already know that rewarded and rationalized violent activities, committed by attractive or similar perpetrators contribute to this process. We need more.

Playing these games allows them to project out some personal, social, or family conflict. Research should look into the role relationship and conflicts in these games to see if these relationships mimic relationships in their real life.

The family system in which these gamers are reared should be explored. Characteristic behaviors, boundaries, coping mechanisms, and values are often learned from within the family. Excessive gaming may result from a family system in which there is excessive genial meddlesomeness and an inability to deal with conflict. This may support a relationship between excessive game playing and the issue of conflict resolution suggesting that these gamers solve some of their problems maladaptively through these games. These families may devote a lot of energy to not solving conflicts, and the gamer adopts the family's avoidant approach to solving problems. Preoccupation with games may also be adapted to rebel against an over or under controlled family structure, and to deal with feelings of emptiness. In effect, playing these games may become an unhealthy compensation for this void and functions to control emptiness and loneliness, while at the same time being able to assert themselves through aggressive game playing. If this is a form of rebellion, it will be important to look at the factors that cause them to employ this type of rebellion. In a culture that values masculine prowess, playing these games may be seen as representing positive assets such as independence, strength, self-discipline, and intelligence. With this being said, game developers and researchers should look into the markedly disparate sex ratio, hence the disproportionately low representation of female characters in these games and as players.

A different type of identification is evidenced as well, and is pervasive throughout other entertainment mediums. Not only does a gamer psychologically and behaviorally identify with the aggressor, but research evidences that the body and brain do as well. It appears as though the brain interprets simulated violence as something real, and the gamers physiological and neuro-chemical changes mimic real life changes in the body when under attack (Atkinson, 2004). The player becomes the character on the screen- body and soul- and of one mind. They become enmeshed and react emotionally to the aggressive actions of the character and opponent. They are engulfed in empathy and understanding without actually being there (Gouskos, 2006).

Dehumanization of the victim, anonymity of perpetrator and disorientation has been known to contribute to a sense of aggression, sense of power and dominance. (Zimbardo, 2006; Bandura, 1990). (Many gamers describe the feeling of dominance as a sense of ownership, claiming that they "own" those they frag.). These forces work similarly by inducing a temporary sense of de-individuation and depersonalization which can temporarily induce some to do aggressive things or make weak people feel stronger. Temporary is illuminated here to explain the situational contingencies on which these changes occur. These temporary forces can be applied to violent video games. Zimbardo stated "instead of changing yourself and becoming the aggressor, it becomes easier to be hostile against other people by changing your psychological conception of them. You think of them as worthless animals" (Zimbardo, 2006). In violent games, especially first person shooters like in Doom, (the one most implicated in creating real world violence at Columbine High), the gamer as perpetrator is completely anonymous and out of sight. All we see is the weapon and the rest of him is given to the imagination. Other forms of anonymity prevail as the aggressor is diffused or hidden in standard uniforms, or cars or appearing as fantasy characters such as demons, monsters or aliens. They do not possess an individual identity with a unique personality or unique facial and physical features. They are diffused into uniformity and a shared destiny. Victims in these games are often dehumanized in a way similar to the achievement of anonymity. They too are diffused into uniformity. Their humanity is regressed Vis a Vis uniforms, being the "bad guy" or "enemy" or being a monster or demon. With respect to dehumanization, it will be interesting to investigate if the experience of killing a non-human entity such as a demon or alien is different from the experience of hunting humans.

Disorientation also applies to these games as their electronic environment can be very confusing, and emotionally charged. Gamers are playing in a rapidly moving and ever altering simulated world. Its permanence and evidence is lost, as one can close the computer just like a book and it goes away until we pick it up again. This point is especially acute with respect to MMORPGs, as the active world in these games never stops for anyone. This requires reorienting oneself to the game's changing landscapes, scores, and characters upon returning.

The influence of anonymity, dehumanization and disorientation are all variables that should be investigated with respect to the power they may have to induce powerful feelings and aggressive types of game play on the screen. An important point worthy of future discussion is the seeming differences between anonymity/dehumanization and Bandura's social learning or social cognitive theory. The former talks about the importance of invisibility contrasting the latter which highlights the observation of a very specific and identifiable person with admirable or identifying characteristics. (Media Scope, 1998). The seeming core differences between the two are interesting and should be looked into.

A popular trend amongst single player game makers is creating an interactive movie where the player is the star, with an ever flowing camera. F.E.A.R. and Half-Life 2 are good examples. This helps bring the world to life in the eyes of the player, where characters, interactions, and relationships are created, resulting in felt emotion. The proliferation of real life like characters in these games, a re-humanization, if you would, have the power to make choices in their world, determine where they go, who they interact with, and what gets done.

(Page 2)

Click Here for a PDF file of this article