Adam Lanza who gunned down 26 children and educators at Sandy Hook Elementary School in December, regularly played "Call of Duty," a video game that simulates wartime violence. That revelation reignited the debate over violent video games and their effect on behavior.
The National Rifle Association suggested a link exists and Gov. Chris Christie has called for restricting the sale of violent games to minors.
The Star-Ledger asked two researchers on violent media — Paul Boxer of Rutgers-Newark and Craig Ferguson of Texas A&M International University — this question: Do violent video games cause violent behavior?
By Paul Boxer
Do violent video games cause violent behavior? The short answer is: Yes. The longer answer gets complicated. But it doesn’t change what we know.
Laboratory studies looking at immediate and delayed effects, field studies looking at immediate relations and effects over time — they point to the same unwavering conclusion: When individuals play violent video games, the likelihood increases that they will experience aggressive feelings and thoughts, and engage in aggressive behavior. Some studies even point to the increased likelihood that they will engage in violent behavior.
There is no division in the scientific community about this. Despite a vocal minority of scholars, the consensus among scientists, pediatricians and organizations charged with promoting the science of human welfare (including the National Institutes of Health, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, and the American Academy of Pediatrics) is that playing violent video games increases risk for violent behavior.
In fact, for the past 50 years, this has been the consensus with respect to all forms of violent media — including TV and film. Indeed, as far back as 1972, the U.S. surgeon general said the findings of research linking TV violence and anti-social behavior justified "appropriate and remedial action."
We’re still waiting for that kind of action to deal with violence on TV, but Gov. Chris Christie is now ready to act on violence in video games. He has stated his interest in legislation to limit children’s access to violent games by allowing purchases to be made only by adults. Although a similar attempt by California was overturned by the U.S. Supreme Court, it is important to bear in mind that current science supports limiting children’s exposure.
So what’s the trouble? With the scientific consensus, where is the public support for this kind of legislation? The Newtown, Conn., tragedy made surprising bedfellows of the National Rifle Association and Democratic leaders in Congress. But their pronouncements that violent games might somehow be the key to understanding how Adam Lanza and other mass shooters became killers actually rang false with most of the scientific community.
This might surprise you: There is not a single scientist working on these issues in the mainstream who would ever claim that violent video games alone cause mass shootings. To take it a step further, we also would never suggest that violent video games alone cause violence at all. Violent behavior is known to be the result of multiple and interacting risk factors — including mental illness, child maltreatment, substance use and other negative influences. Adam Lanza might have played a lot of violent games, but that could not have been enough to drive him to do what he did.
However, you can bet it helped. Because playing violent video games increases the chances that someone will engage in aggressive or even violent behavior.
In the recent Supreme Court decision, and now with Christie’s new proposal, you won’t see scientists saying violent games should be banned. Because that’s not even what the governor wants to do.
What we believe is what any parent believes — that parents, who know their children best and know what kinds of risks they might face, should make the decision as to whether their children can play violent games. Christie’s new proposal will help parents make a more informed decision by highlighting the potentially damaging effects of those games.
Paul Boxer is an associate professor of psychology and faculty fellow in criminal justice at Rutgers-Newark.
Read the other side of the argument: CON: Video games are a convenient target after tragedies.