Video Games vs. Violence: A Critical Analysis

As a person that loves to play video games, it’s frustrating that I can’t play violent video games because of the sheer fact that my parents say that violent video games cause violence. But is that actually true? As a matter of fact, aggression with video games is a very split topic, and even studies are very divided if there’s a correlation between it or not. On one hand, two separate lab reports from Zhang et al. (2020) and Khalil et al. (2019) believe that there is a correlation between violent video games with aggression in children. Still, another lab report from Ridge et al. (2023), determined that there is no correlation. Other separate lab reports have reviewed the same topic and there is no consensus throughout all of them. It’s been a topic of debate ever since the early 90s because of the game “Mortal Kombat” and new violent video games, such as “Call of Duty,” “Fortnite,” and “Rainbow Six Siege.” Despite the continued debate surrounding violent video games, one thing is clear: the gaming industry is bigger than ever, with millions of people around the world enjoying video games of all genres and styles. Although all three lab reports had less than 500 people tested, which can cause some inaccuracies in the lab report, Khalil et al. (2019) show an easier-to-read format using charts, tables, and graphs, as well as tested a more accurate age range of 10-16, instead of Zhang et al. (2020) 5-6 age range in kindergarten, and Ridge et al. (2023) tested with university students.

To start things off, all of the lab reports begin with an explanation of video games and refer to how particular news media have sensationalized the topic of violent video games and their potential effects on aggression. In the actual study, all three lab reports use vastly different research methods. Zhang et al. (2020) conducted their research by recruiting a sample of 480 kindergarteners, aged five or six, from various regions in Southwest China. These participants were divided into two groups, with 240 kindergarteners in each group.  One group played one of three violent video games, “Tank Battle,” “Violent Motorcycle,” and  “Street Fighter II,” whilst the other group played one of the non-violent video games, “Chicken Run,” “Fruits and Vegetables,” and “Tetris.” This was proven by experts by comparing eight different metrics, some of them being frustration and enjoyment, and it showed that violent video games got a higher score in violent content. All of the children did the exact same conditions, on 15-inch laptops for 15 minutes playing 1 of the 6 games. Turning our attention to Ridge et al. (2023), which took place at a United States university right before the COVID pandemic. They first polled people asking them if violent video games affect them and if they think that playing violent video games were risky to them because they make them behave in an aggressive manner. Afterward, they went ahead to a computer lab and were seated at individual terminals. They did a coin flip, and depending on if they either got heads or tails, they will play either a violent video game or a non-violent video game. They also got a consent form, as well as an explanation saying that they were testing reaction times. The video game that all of the participants played was Doom II: Hell on Earth. They were either given a violent task, which was to attack demons that were invading from hell with two different guns, or the nonviolent task, which was that they had two teleportation devices to help aliens that escaped from prison without any kind of violence. They let the participants play the game for 15 minutes and then they would do a reaction time task with someone else. Finally, Khalil et al. (2019) conducted their study in four English-speaking schools in India. They recruited 50 male and 50 female students from each school, resulting in a total sample size of 400. Students were given a questionnaire to complete, which included questions about their video game playing habits, such as the types of games they typically played, the frequency and duration of their gaming sessions, and their preferred gaming platforms. Students who did not give consent were excluded, and other students filled in the gaps in the sample. The results and the way that all of the studies explained it were vastly different, and there were some errors in their responses.

For each one of the lab reports, they all said that violent video games do correlate with violence, which could be possible for a similar hypothesis, but in this case, Zhang et al. (2020) and Khalil et al. (2019) predicted and concluded that violent video games do have a correlation with aggression in children. Regardless, Ridge et al. (2023) found no such correlation between violent video games and aggression even though they had the same hypothesis. Multiple different factors could have contributed to this discrepancy, such as small sample sizes or the kinds of statistical analyses. It could also be because of location, but they all said there was some correlation between violent video games and aggression. With this, it could cause some confusion among people, as well as a personal bias for someone to prove a point, showing that the one they originally had thought was there. One major inaccuracy in Khalil et al. (2019) lab report says, “First of all parents should avoid buying violent video games for their kids as far as possible to save their children in developing adverse behavior which is not right in their psychosocial development as a whole.” This is a major fault in an overall reasonable lab report, due to the fact that video games normally have an age rating, so parents should be relating to that when buying games for their children. Another fault came from Zhang et al. (2020). For the first one, although mostly a limited range of testing, they tested in China, where there are a lot fewer games compared to other countries due to China having strict restrictions on what could and couldn’t be played in the country. Secondly, they tested violent video games on kindergarteners aged five or six. This is a major inaccuracy due to the fact that one of the games, “Street Fighter II,” was rated T for ages 13 and up. A kindergartener’s brain can’t possibly comprehend what violence in these video games means. They can indeed react violently to the video game because of the fact that they don’t understand what it is. Lastly, Ridge et al. (2023) did overall change their conclusion after testing it out, as well as testing with university students, which most likely is that they’re more than 18 years of age, but it wasn’t explicitly said. One major factor is that there were only 302 total participants, which is a lot lower compared to the other lab reports. Despite these discrepancies, they give valid reasoning for their conclusions, and the way that they format it is different for all of them, either making it easier or more difficult for the user reading to understand the concepts said.

The eligibility of the lab report is one of the most important parts; if done incorrectly it can cause confusion in some audiences at best, and at worse it can cause chaos and mistrust in the scientific community, as well as terror in the reader. First of all, Ridge et al. (2023) explained the entire process well, but overall there are a lot of variables and numbers that are really hard to read for an inexperienced lab report reader. One thing to combat this is visual graphs, which make it a lot easier for the reader to understand what they’re saying. Secondly, Zhang et al. (2020) have many different graphs and tables, but most of them use complicated and hard-to-read variables, making it confusing to view the full process. Once again, the conclusion given is quite well explained, so it doesn’t hinder the overall lab report too much, but it could be explained better. Lastly, the one that explains their process the best is Ridge et al. (2023), with who show tables and show useful, easy to comprehend numbers and variables that almost anyone can understand. 

The relationship between violent video games and aggression remains a complex and ongoing topic of research in the academic community. While some studies like Khalil et al. (2019) and Zhang et al. (2020) suggest that there is a correlation between playing violent video games and increased aggression, others like Ridge et al. (2023) found no such correlation. But this won’t matter if your composition is rubbish. Even if your explanation is objectively or morally wrong or right, the best way to explain it is to be straightforward so that there’ll be no confusion amongst anyone and everyone. 

References

Khalil, S., Sultana, F., Muzammil, K., Alim, F., Nasir, N., Hassan, A. ul, & Mahmood, S. E. (2019). Impact of Playing Violent Video Games Among School Going Children. Indian Journal of Community Health, 31(3), 331–337. https://doi.org/10.47203/ijch.2019.v31i03.007

Ridge, R. D., Hawk, C. E., McCombs, L. D., Richards, K. J., Schultz, C. A., Ashton, R. K., Hartvigsen, L. D., & Bartlett, D. (2023). “It Doesn’t Affect Me!” – Do Immunity Beliefs Prevent Subsequent Aggression After Playing a Violent Video Game?. Journal of Media Psychology. https://doi.org/10.1027/1864-1105/a000369

Zhang, Q., Tian, J., & Chen, L. (2020). Violent Video Game Effects on Aggressive Behavior among Children: The Role of Aggressive Motivation and Trait-Aggressiveness in China. Journal of Aggression, Maltreatment & Trauma, 30(2), 1–18. https://doi.org/10.1080/10926771.2020.1866135

Reflection for the Rhetorical Analysis

The recent essay for rhetorical analysis that I initially did was messy and was not a rhetorical analysis essay. It was just explaining the content of the lab reports instead of a rhetorical analysis. After I redid the essay nearly from scratch, I think that the newly revised essay is a lot better, explaining how the biases of the lab reporters could have interfered with the overall results, whilst one of them actually did change their conclusion compared to their hypothesis.

The overall conclusion that I wanted to say to the audience was to make sure that whatever you were writing, it’s as clear and there’s no confusion. Confusion can cause terror, no matter how minor it is. I also wanted to write this because video games and violence lab reports are one of the most oversaturated kinds in general. I wanted to show how people can just make a quick lab report with not that many students just to meet their quote. I’m not saying that this is the case, but it can most certainly be possible.

The audience is mostly for all general audiences, mostly ones that are on the internet. The main reason is that even the best peer-reviewed lab report can have some doubt in it. It’s best to view multiple different sources, from peer revied lab reports to videos on the internet or anywhere else. In this specific case, there’s currently no consensus, even though the news keeps on saying there is (the news is biased in this case). It’s also true that I can’t play violent video games because my parents think about the general cases and think it’s just morally bad.
In general, this has helped me cite my sources, as well as helped me with my source use practices. It’s helped me use the CCNY library, as I’ve known about it before but never knew how to actually search on it. I’ve also learned how to effectively peer review, as well as asking for help, as well as negotiating my goals with the audience’s expectations.