Several of today's popular games have out-performed top movie releases - the fastest selling video game in history, Halo 3, grossed over $300 million in sales in its first week alone - out-earning any movie release that same year and making it "one of the most successful entertainment properties in history".
As video games become an increasingly large part of the entertainment industry it is only natural that they will receive increased scrutiny from the general public, just as the music industry did when it first came to dominate popular culture. The game genre that receives the most direct scrutiny is that which provide players the chance to play out their fantasies of violence in a virtual world. These games have long been demonized and blamed for playing a major role in several tragedies, such as the Columbine shootings, where the killers played violent games regularly.
But is there really a scientific basis for this scrutiny? Is it possible that we are enacting laws and creating panic among worried parents without any scientific evidence of an actual correlation between video games and violent behaviors and actions? There are several different perspectives that need to be taken into consideration before anyone can confirm the violent video game scrutinizers' hypothesis that "video games cause violence in the real world": the physiological perspective which is solely based on the body and brain's natural responses, the psychological perspective which examines factors including priming for aggression as well as possible desensitization, and the social perspective, which will determine whether or not playing violent video games leads to withdrawal from social activities as well as increased aggressiveness towards peers.
I intend to present evidence that rejects the aforementioned hypothesis, and will show that within each of the given perspectives, there are many incorrect or unresolved issues that need to be attended to before the hypothesis can come anywhere close to being acceptable.
Physiological Response
The first area that needs to be examined is how the body's natural responses give us an indication to whether or not violent video games are affecting the body in a similar way to how it would react in a real-life violent situation. This is important because if the needed response to the games is not present, or it differs extremely from an actual violent situation, then the hypothesis that "violent video games causes violence in the real world" cannot be true.
The most basic body responses - heart rate and galvanic skin response - do show increased activity levels while playing a violent video game, just as they would in a real-life violent situation (Carnagey). This comes as no surprise - these factors can typically be expected to increase in activity when something this graphic is viewed. Interestingly, Dr. Vilayanur Ramachandran has shown that even when a person sees his or her mother it elicits a significant galvanic skin response, so it really isn't a stretch to believe that galvanic skin response as well as heart rate would be affected by violent video games if they are affected by something as commonplace as one's mother.
Looking at the brain's responses, however, will give a greater indication as to whether or not the body is responding to video games in the same manner as it responds to actual violence. When a violent part of the video game was reached by the player, "the cognitive parts of the brain became more active. And during a fight, emotional parts of the brain, such as the amygdala and parts of the anterior cingulate cortex, were shut down. This pattern is the same as that seen in subjects who have had brain scans during other simulated violent situations" (Motluk). Motluk notes that since it is impossible to scan a person's brain during an actual violent situation, the simulated violent situation is the best benchmark to gauge whether or not the brain is acting similarly in both real-life and video game situations. Based on this data, the body's response to violent video games is similar to its response to a real-life violent situation.
Priming for Aggression
In order for the hypothesis to keep holding true, however, there must be sufficient evidence that the psychological perspectives are confirmed to be plausible factors. One of the main arguments within this perspective is that violent video games prime their players toward aggressive tendencies. If the effect of violent video games is only short term and does not prime the player towards aggressive tendencies over the long run, then there is no possible way that violent video games can be linked to real-life violence. Some experts believe that video games do in fact prime for aggression; Niels Birbaumer of the University of Tubingen in Germany says that "playing violent video games regularly would strengthen [those] circuits in the brain" (Motluk).
