Supporters of the hypothesis would argue that if the brain's circuits have been reinforced to be primed for aggression, then when a person who has played violent video games is presented with a real-life violent scenario, it is believed that he or she will act more aggressively than a person that has not played any violent video games. This seems to be the most plausible argument in support of the main hypothesis, but it still subject to scrutiny. Just because a player may be primed for aggression in no way confirms that this specific characteristic is the cause of the person's aggression in real-life situations. This assumption is what is the downfall of this argument; yes, it may be possible that it is one of the factors in video game violence translating into real-life violence, but in no way does this argument single-handedly prove the hypothesis. All aspects of the psychological perspective as well as the other perspectives must be taken into account, not just this one factor.
Desensitization
Another topic of discussion within the psychological perspective that is crucial to the "video game violence produces real-life violence" hypothesis is that the subjects who play violent video games are more desensitized to real-life violence than those who have not played violent video games. This is an important topic because if a link between desensitization and violent video games isn't established, then the hypothesis is significantly weakened. Supporters of the proposed hypothesis claim that desensitization is a major factor in causing the subject to display violent tendencies; many of them have made this assumption because they have seen the link between desensitization and violent behavior in other media - some of the more prevalent examples are high profile murders in which the murderer has had significant military training.
Sgt. William Kreutzer is one such example - he decided to "open fire on hundreds of comrades as they gathered for morning formation. One soldier was killed, and 18 others were seriously injured in the bloodiest attack on a U.S. base in American history" (Scharnberg). When the public views cases like this, they quickly link Kreutzer's desensitization due to his military background to his extremely violent behavior. It is easy to see how an individual would make this connection, so it definitely needs to be taken into consideration when discussing the role of violent video games in society.
A few different questions need to be raised regarding desensitization: do violent video games cause desensitization to real-life violence, do violent video games cause desensitization to violence more than non-violent video games do, and even if there is significant proof of desensitization, does that truly translate into negative effects on the subject, or are there possible positive effects of desensitization caused by video games?
There have been several studies trying to answer the "do violent video games cause desensitization to real-life violence" question, and there have been mixed results. One study found that "the present research did not identify strong relationships between exposure to real-life violence and study measures of desensitization" (Funk). However, other studies have shown that "the results demonstrate that playing a violent video game, even for just 20 minutes, can cause people to become less physiologically aroused by real violence" (Carnagey). It is safe to say that the jury is still out on desensitization, but for argument's sake let's assume that there is indeed some degree of desensitization caused by violent video games. However, it is important to remember that further research is needed in this area due to the conflicting studies.
What about "normal" games?
So if there is desensitization caused by violent games, then is the degree of desensitization greater than if a player were to play a warm, fuzzy game with no violence at all? Once again, there is conflicting information regarding this topic. One group of researchers deduced that "participants randomly assigned to play a violent video game had a relatively lower heart rate and galvanic skin response while watching actual footage of people being beaten, stabbed, and shot than did those randomly assigned to play a nonviolent video game" (Carnagey). At first glance, this seems to be solid empirical evidence that proves that violent video games cause more desensitization than nonviolent games, and therefore the violent game players would act more aggressively in real-life violent situations.
However, as stated earlier, galvanic skin response and heart rate are relatively weak indicators of how the person is reacting to certain stimuli. They are only physiological indicators; they do not give the full picture of the effects on the person as a whole. If used in correlation with other data such as brain imaging and psychological analysis, then they could show certain trends about the individual, but if it is assumed that if the heart rate and galvanic skin response of an individual that played violent games was lower than those who played nonviolent games when these two groups watched violent footage, then the group that played the violent games would act more aggressively in a real-life violent situation, then your are drawing drastic assumptions from data that just flat out doesn't support that conclusion.
