Twirl that mustache!

Video game violence has always carried with it a lot of blame.  For ages, the impression has been and continues to be that violence in gaming leads to moral decay.  Often, when looking for a scapegoat to explain away violence in society, video games become an easy target.  From parents to politicians, there is a strong opposition to the idea of shooting a virtual gun, swinging a virtual sword, or dual-wielding virtual chainsaws.

It’s with this in mind that I find a recent study, led by an assistant professor at University at Buffalo, coauthored by researchers from Michigan State and University of Texas at Austin.  The study found that individuals who play violent video games, specifically being “bad” in a violent video game, resulted in being more morally sensitive.  As with all the studies I discuss, the conditions are not absolute, but it does fly in the face of common perception.

The study was conducted by taking 185 students, divided into two groups.  The first group was assigned to play a first person shooter while divided into two teams: one as terrorist and the other as United Nations soldiers.  The second (boring) group did memory recall tasks, one again in two teams: one recalling acts that would make them feel guilty, the other acts that would not make them feel guilty.  After each group completes their task, the students answered a questionnaire with a guilt scale to determine how they felt guilt.

The results showed, counter to popular belief, that those in the FPS group who played as terrorists were more sensitive to guilt over instances of harm and lack of fairness, the two areas the researchers believe were most challenged by playing as a terrorist.

Sensitive to guilt is one thing, but studies have also shown that playing as a villain, even in name only, has negative impacts on the empathy of a player immediately afterward.  This conclusion adds an interesting twist, that immediately after playing the villain, the player is now more sensitive to the guilt of negative actions.  If one combined these two findings, admittedly an irresponsible and inconclusive task, the solution could be that players who are doing “bad” are more aware that they are bad but more inclined to do it anyway.  Unflattering, certainly, but I fully admitted that combining these two small studies was irresponsible.

The issue I continually bring up with these studies is the relatively small sample size.  Also, the sample pool consists of the student body at the universities where these studies were conducted.  The size is limited to the capacity of the researchers and the pool of volunteers.  I’ve participated in many studies like this because extra credit in Intro to Psych doesn’t grow on trees, so I have a fair idea of the environment in which this type of study is conducted.

(On an unrelated note, one of those studies had me literally watch a video of a woman’s cleavage while she solved basic puzzles, then evaluate her.  I have no idea what the hypothesis was or what the study found, but it’s incredibly uncomfortable to do that while being observed.  Perhaps that was the real study? But I digress…)

The point being, I’m hardly here to shout from the rooftops that video game violence has been cleared of all wrongdoing, hence the question mark in the title of the article.  While I refuse to carry a torch and pitchfork while blaming video games for everything wrong in society, this study, while interesting, does not throw out the argument.  What it does, however, is open the door for more serious questions about how this interactive media can effect moral perception, and to what extent.

What is not explored in this study is the length of time that these sensitivities are present.  There are some players out there who I’m sure have logged hundreds of Counterstrike hours as terrorists, and yet we aren’t in a new age of enlightenment.  My point, facetious as it is, suggests that one initial study does not mean that an individual is forever changed by any given amount of time playing a video game.  The authors of study say as much, stating that they do not wish to use this study as evidence that playing violent games all the time is a good thing, but merely that video games can be used to explore the potential guilt on my feel as a result of certain actions.

I’ll admit that the idea that we could actually feel a sensitivity to real guilt as a result of virtual actions is intriguing, if this kind of a relationship can be verified.  It allows a deeper gaming experience.  Honestly, when I look back, I can see some of the points of this study in my own gameplay.  Truth be told, in Walking Dead Season 1 (*SPOILERS* for the rest of this paragraph) I paused the game and thought long and hard about whether or not to kill Larry in the freezer.  I really couldn’t deduce the right action.

Concluding, do I believe video game violence causes violent behavior?  No, I do not, and no study has been able to prove that.  Yes, politicians will presume it (on both sides of the aisle) but it’s not founded.  However, has this study found video game violence to be beneficial?  Not exactly, no.  What it does is give insight into what a deeper impact video games could have, and perhaps how a different perspective can create a moral response that we ourselves weren’t expecting.