47
with an overarching insistence on finding a causal link between violence, that
logic would have to lead to the conclusion that violence would have reached
near chaos levels by now. While the world, and our country, can be very
dangerous and violent places, such a conclusion is simply and completely
untrue. Worse still, such reductive thinking avoids a more fruitful discussion
about the root cause of such horrors as school shootings and street violence.
Two major studies, the first published in 2009 and the second in 2011,
prove with definitive authority that violence in video games itself is not any sort
of predictor that can be used to determine violent tendencies outside of the
virtual world. The 2009 study, entitled “The Motivating Role of Violence in
Video Games” was conducted by University of Rochester professors Andrew K.
Przybylski and Richard M. Ryan. They do not set aside other research that has
been done in an attempt to correlate violent behavior and loss of empathy due to
playing violent video games. Instead, they seek to uncover what motivates
gamers to play a violent game and whether the violent content is the sole or even
the major driver of this motivation. As the authors posit, “Indeed, games
involving war, combat, or adventures may provide opportunities for
psychological satisfaction that are irrespective of the violent elements within the
games” (244). While they concede that some players might be motivated just by
violence, they point out that this does not explain gamers who are motivated by
and find satisfaction in playing non-violent titles. Their research findings lead
them to conclude that a gamer’s sense of mastery over the game’s mechanics
and competence in playing was an overriding motivating factor in violent
games, not the pursuit of violence itself (246-249).
The 2011 study, entitled “The Effect of Video Game Competition and
Violence on Aggressive Behavior: Which Characteristic Has the Greatest
Influence?” was conducted by professors Paul J. C. Adachi and Teena
Willoughby. They seek to determine whether it is the violent content of video
games that explains increases in aggression in some gamers, or the competitive
nature of some games in and of itself Other studies have wrongly concluded
that any increase in aggression was only explainable as a direct result of the
violence. Adachi and Willoughby instead find “that when isolating specific
video game characteristics, competitiveness had a much larger impact on
aggressive behavior than the violent content” (272). Gamers, therefore, most
often play to win, either against other gamers in a multiplayer environment or
against the game’s own obstacles. This is no different than the competitive
nature fostered by everything from team sports to spelling bees, to the business
world. Yet in other realms, competitive behavior and the aggression it can bring
out are hailed as hallmarks of our culture and much needed traits of the
successful.
The better and more provocative question to ask in relation to the issue
of violent content in video games centers first on their ratings. As was
mentioned briefly earlier, video games are all rated through the Entertainment
Software Rating Board (ESRB). The ESRB has ratings very similar to those
used by the Motion Picture Association of America (MPAA) to rate films, from