Video Games Negative or Positive?

Do video games have a direct correlation with the aggression and violence in the people who play them? This is the controversy discussed in the following articles. Jack Hollingdale of the University of Sussex, UK and Tobias Greitemeyer of the University of Innsbruck, Austria have collaborated in writing The changing face of aggression: the effect of personalized avatars in a violent video game on levels of aggressive behaviors. Hollingdale and Greitemeyer argue that “Studies have found that exposure to violent video games correlates negatively with helping behaviors in the real world and, as a result, exposure to violent video games poses a public health threat to children and youth” (Hollingdale and Greitemeyer 1). However, Christopher J Ferguson from Texas A&M International University, the department of behavioral applied science and criminal justice, sees the more positive side of the violent video games. In his article Blazing Angels or Resident Evil? Can Violent Video Games Be a Force for Good he disputes that “the negative effects of violent games have been exaggerated by some elements of the scientific community, fitting with past cycles of media-forced moral panics” (Ferguson 1). Both articles use statistics and specific examples to prove their thesis. Ferguson uses the claim of value more than claims of fact which seem to discredit his argument. Hollingdale and Greitmeyer support their thesis with psychological studies, statistics, and disproving any counterevidence that may be relevant. The article from Hollingdale and Greitmeyer is the superior article to use when looking for validation in their thesis because of their ability to prove their thesis with specific examples that are then confirmed with facts and statistics. “Research and anecdotal evidence supports the notion that playing violent video games increases the levels of cognitive, affective, and behavioral aggression and decreases levels of prosocial behavior” (Hollingdale et. al. 1). Hollingdale and Greitmeyer effectively identify definitive issues that are addressed in their article and then later follow up with specific examples. This is effective in engaging the reader in the disputed points addressed in the article and then reiterating them with providing statistics later in the article. The general aggression model (GAM) is used in measuring levels of aggression and violent behavior in regards to video games. “The GAM posits that situational input variables influence components of the individual’s present internal state; these components being cognition, affect, and arousal” (Hollingdale et.al. 1) It is advantageous that a legitimate psychological model is used for their study to further validate their evidence. Ferguson does not reference any such evidence for his verification of his argument.
Another topic that Hollingdale and Greitmeyer address that Ferguson fails to mention is the use of avatars. This is a trend that is growing more and more in games in the market today.
“Personalizing avatars increases the connection between the players and the avatars by representing their physical characteristics or ideal self” (Hollingdale et. al. 2). Hollingdale and Greitmeyer go into detail explaining the observation from their study. “Our findings suggest that the effects of violent video games on aggressive behavior are exacerbated when the game structure (i.e., playing with a personal avatar) increases similarity to reality, which is assumed to foster learning and transfer” (Hollingdale et.al. 5). They go on to explain the relevance of a personal avatar and aggression after playing.
“The greater part of the debate has focused on the negative effects of violent content”

(Ferguson 1). Ferguson states consistently throughout his article that the evidence of violent video games contributing to aggression are bias in reporting the facts. He effectively defines the term of aggressive behavior to help the reader better understand the actual topic being debated. “Video game violence itself generally has been characterized by researchers as intentional acts within game play directed to cause physical harm to an animated character within the game” (Ferguson 1). This implies that the aggressive behavior is intended towards the other fictional characters of a game and not towards others in society. Ferguson goes further into detail of the history of media violence. This is not as effective as it could have been due to the detail and amount of time used in describing the ancient times. It is easy for the reader to become uninterested or even lost in the wordiness of this part of the article. It can also be perceived by the reader as irrelevant to the main claim of the article. “Nonresearchers also fuel the debate at times by providing misinformation. For instance Florida attorney and anti-game activist Jack Thompson claimed that the Virginia Tech Shooter who killed 32 people at a university in Virginia in 2007, was an avid player of violent video games. Yet the Virginia
Tech Review Panel ultimately found that Seung-Hui Cho, the shooter, did not play video games at all” (Ferguson 3). This is an excellent example. It is very specific and exemplifies the misinformation the media provides to the public. “Public statements of misinformation naturally inflame an existing moral panic rather that inform the populace” (Ferguson 3). This statement validates Ferguson’s claim that the media is the reason for the added emphasis of aggression caused by video games.
Ferguson additionally explains the limits of our interpretations of video game violence and aggression research. He lists nine points in this argument. These are effective in laying out the falsity in the belief of the correlation of aggression and video games however, it is also distracting with the amount of irrelevant detail that is provided with each point. Ferguson uses charts and graphs to validate his evidence which is an exceptional tool for readers to visualize the statistics. This is a device that was not used in the article from Hollingdale and Greitmeyer.
One common factor from both articles is the social aspect of gaming regardless if it is a violent video game or not. “Everquest and World of Warcraft allowed for complex social interactions to occur within the game world. Current evidence suggests that social connections formed through such online games can be very deep and meaningful to those involved” (Ferguson 10).
This use of specific games helps the reader to identify easier to the topic being discussed and further justifies Ferguson’s argument. “Positive social experiences online can encourage social experiences off-line and that video game play can be effective in meeting needs for relation with others” (Hollingdale et. al. 4). The fact that Hollingdale and Greitmeyer can identify the positive side of gaming is a relief to the reader in the article. It is not as biased as the article from Ferguson which only addresses one side of the argument.
“This study identified that the personalization of avatars increases levels of behavioral aggression within violent video games. Given the popularity and growth of this violent genre, concerns should be raised” (Hollingdale et. al. 5). This article comes back to the original allegation that is stated early on. Hollingdale and Greitmeyer do an excellent job staying on task with the article, providing statistics, and arguing counterevidence. These are all effective tools in engaging the reader. “Although the research on violent games and aggression appears to be much less solid than some scholars have indicated, it must also be emphasized that research on the positive effects of violent games is nascent, but entirely incomplete” (Ferguson 11). The constant concessions Ferguson makes throughout the article can be very distracting to the reader and cause an opposition to the article based on the tone it is written. The article does have some very specific examples that are used remarkably well in context. The use of charts and graphs are a very helpful tool that Ferguson uses when explaining statistical information. The article from Hollingdale and Greitmeyer is definitely more concise in stating and validating their main arguments with evidence and examples that are relevant to their topic. Overall Hollingdale and Greitmeyer cover more information in a shorter article with better examples so it is the more valuable article for researching this topic.

Works Cited

Ferguson, Christopher J. “Blazing Angels or Resident Evil? Can Violent Video Games Be a Force For Good?” Review of General Psychology 14.2 (2010): 68-81. PsyArticles. Web. 27 Oct. 2014.

Hollingdale, Jack, and Tobias Greitemeyer. “The Changing Face of Aggression: The Effect of Personalized Avatars in a Violent Video Game on Levels of Aggressive Behavior.” Journal of Applied Social Psychology 9 (2013): 1862. General OneFile. Web. 27 Oct. 2014