how does violent video games help with problem solving

What Can We Learn from Violent Videogames?

Fears that violent videogames will cause people to be more violent are understandable, but unsupported by current research — social and developmental factors are better predictors of violent behavior. In fact, some violent videogames may actually lead to the development of empathy, understanding, and even moral behavior.

On October 1, 2015, a gunman walked into his classroom at Umpqua Community College and methodically began murdering his classmates one-by-one. It feels as if these kinds of mass violence are becoming more common. Columbine (1999). Virginia Tech (2007). Fort Hood (2009). Aurora (2012). Newtown (2012). Fort Hood (again: 2014). Charleston (2015). Those are just the ones most people remember; they don't include the other 34 mass shootings since 1984. Collectively, these mass shootings have claimed 372 lives and injured 412, not including the immeasurable injury done to the families and communities of those murdered.

Just as these events seem to be becoming more commonplace, the tenor of the discussions they prompt have also fallen into a routine. Why did it happen? What can we do to prevent it? In our search for answers, it is only natural that we look for definitive explanations to make sense of the incomprehensible. Was the shooter angry? Taking revenge? Mentally ill? On drugs?

Did the shooter play videogames?

It might seem odd to mention this last question in the same breath as the others, but it is in part because of these mass murders that one of the constant themes in the academic, political, and social debate about videogames in popular culture has been whether and to what extent violent videogames promote aggressive behavior. This debate has been around longer than videogames, however, having surfaced first with film (1900s) and radio (1930s), 1 then comic books (Fredric Wertham's 1954 Seduction of the Innocent , which led to the formation of the Comic Code Authority that same year) and later television (The Family Viewing Hour, a policy overturned by the courts in 1977). Seen in this context, videogames are just the latest media to raise age-old concerns.

Our tendency to view new media with suspicion is a good thing; many would argue that we do not do enough of this now with the shift to a digital economy (e.g., Jeron Lanier's Who Owns the Future ), our use of social media (e.g., Jon Ronson's So You've Been Publicly Shamed ), our loss of privacy and control of our genetic code, and the abuse of social media by employers and law enforcement (e.g., Lori Andrews' I Know Who You Are and I Saw What You Did ), or the spiritual and humanistic implications of technology (e.g., Noreen Herzfeld's In Our Image ). Yet, this tendency to overgeneralize can also blind us to the potential benefits of new media and even prevent us from understanding the way that media may in fact lead to the very outcomes we fear.

This article is based on three premises:

• First, questions about the impact of violent media on behavior are legitimate; we should be critical of the messages we consume and which we put in front of our children.
• Second, our policies and decisions in this regard should be based on evidence rather than anecdotal or conventional wisdom.
• Third, we should strive to be as open to the potential for videogames to promote positive attitudinal and behavioral outcomes as we are to their negative consequences. This is true even (and in some cases, especially) for violent videogames.

The first two premises are related, so I will start with what we do know about whether videogames increase violent behavior.

Do Games Teach Violence and Aggression?

Several good publications help introduce this complex area of study, 2 and I will highlight some of the key findings here. We must start by examining our common beliefs about popular culture media (like videogames) and aggression. In the case of media and violence, the common-sense theory posits that the more you experience violence, the more likely you will become violent. This assertion, however, is not borne out by the literature. Human beings are not passive receptors but active processors of our environments. We continually strive to "make sense" of the messages around us, placing them in social, emotional, cultural, and political contexts. This is why commercial advertisements do not necessarily lead us to purchase the advertised product and why, despite having watched hundreds of hours of The Three Stooges and The Road Runner , I (and thankfully, most other people) have yet to poke my family or friends in the eyes or drop anvils on them from a great height. However, this also explains why people who have trouble distinguishing fantasy and reality, who cannot regulate their emotions, or who lack social/emotional awareness 3 may also be more likely to seek out violent media or to act out in violent ways. This points out another weakness of studies that have found correlational associations linking violence and media consumption: they do not control for other explanatory factors. For example, boys are disproportionately attracted to videogames and more likely to act aggressively than are girls. Thus, correlational studies might document this sex–aggression relationship or other "hidden" correlations rather than media–aggression effects. 4

In Schwarzenegger (later, Brown) vs. Entertainment Merchants Association and Entertainment Software Association (ESA), the ESA sued to overturn a State of California law that restricted the sale of violent videogames to minors. California contended that it had the right to protect the health and well-being of minors, while the ESA contended that the lack of a causal link between violent media, including videogames, made the issue one of free speech. This case might represent the best-informed public debate to date on the issue of violent videogames and aggression. Amicus briefs filed on both sides of the case pulled all the relevant research known at the time and subjected it to intense scrutiny and debate. Among the dozens of briefs filed on behalf of the ESA was an amicus brief authored by a coalition of states and territories and 82 psychologists, criminologists, medical scientists, and media researchers, 5 all of whom contended that the State of California had misrepresented the science on videogames and that there was no causal link in the research. Ultimately, the argument by the ESA won out, first in District Court, later on appeal in the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, and finally in the U.S. Supreme Court. Each court ruled that there was insufficient evidence of a causal link between violent videogames (or any media, for that matter) and violent behavior or aggression.

This complex case involved many different issues and arguments, but the Supreme Court's 7-2 ruling hinged in three main points: videogames, "like the protected books, plays, and movies that preceded them…communicate ideas…" which "suffices to confer First Amendment protection; that current rating systems are sufficient to prevent minors from purchasing mature games and that…filling the remaining modest gap in concerned-parents' control can hardly be a compelling state interest." Moreover, there was no "compelling" link between violent videogames and aggression or violence in children.

Many are uncomfortable with the free speech component of the decision; when it comes to our children, safety feels more important than free speech (consider our views on cyberbullying today as a case in point). The second point is perhaps a bit more palatable because it seems to strike a balance between regulation (albeit self-imposed, and with at times questionable definitions of what qualifies a game for a rating of "Teen" vs. "Mature") 6 and parental control. Ultimately, no law can substitute for parental involvement in what their children consume and, more importantly, what meaning they make from it. Still, wherever you come down on this issue as a parent, teacher, administrator, politician, or citizen, the third point is the most salient and should serve to remove any qualms we have over the first two issues: There is no compelling evidence linking videogames (or TV, movies, magazines, plays, or books) to violence and aggression in children.

This case illustrated the error, to which people on both sides of the debate are prone, of oversimplification. The case ultimately hinged on whether evidence exists for the "dosing" model of violence and aggression. The dosing model holds that the presence of violence (any kind) leads to violent behavior, and that the more violence one is exposed to (time, intensity), the more likely one is to become more violent. As the hundreds of sources cited in the above-referenced amicus brief illustrates, the dosing model is too simplistic to predict violence or aggression. Teen violent crime has actually decreased over the last 20 years at the same time that videogame play has increased. If one plots the number of per capita gun-related murders against per capita spending on videogames, several interesting things become apparent. First, only China spends less per capita (~$5) on videogames than the United States (~$42); Germany, Australia, Japan, the United Kingdom, France, and Canada spend $45–$65, while South Korea and the Netherlands spend more than $100 per capita. Yet the United States has three times more gun murders than any other country, including South Korea (zero murders per 100,000) and the Netherlands (0.4 per 100,000). See table 1.

Table 1. Rank-ordered list of top 10 countries by videogame sales and corresponding gun homicides per capita*

  * New Zoo Games Market Research ** United National Office on Drugs and Crime: Global Study on Homicide (2013)

Mass Shootings and Videogames

This has not stopped us from looking to videogames in our painful search to explain tragedies like Columbine, Aurora, Virginia Tech, and Sandy Hook. The killers responsible for the murders at Columbine, Aurora, and Sandy Hook reportedly played a lot of videogames, although the shooter at Virginia Tech did not. Yet, the Sandy Hook killer mostly played nonviolent games (he spent the most time playing Super Mario Brothers and Dance Dance Revolution ), and the shooter at Aurora played mostly role-playing games (fantasy-based games that feature armed combat against primarily monsters) like World of Warcraft , Neverwinter Nights , and Diablo , which do not feature guns. Of all the perpetrators of these horrific mass shootings, only the Columbine shooters actually played games that involve using guns to shoot people. The more common thread? All were mentally ill at the time of the shootings and all had access to guns. And, by the way, less than eight percent of violent crime committed by the mentally ill is the direct result of their mental illness, lest we commit another overgeneralization about causes of violence. 7

Videogames could have been part of their illness, of course. Suffering from a serious psychosis conceivably could lead to seeking out experiences and media that reinforce that psychosis and color one's perceptions of what those experiences mean. But it is another thing entirely to reverse the order and suggest that the medium or the experiences caused the illness. Being around young children does not cause people to become pedophiles; being a pedophile makes people seek out environments with young children.

Laboratory Studies vs. Real Life

Virtually every piece of research showing a link between media such as videogames and aggression comes from laboratory settings in which conditions are carefully controlled and in which aggression is measured by paper-and-pencil statements about aggression, not actual aggression. As such, the most we can conclude from these studies is that under some conditions, we can create people who self-report as more aggressive; there is no evidence that those people then go out and behave any differently as a result. The largest-scale meta-analysis to report a link between videogames and aggression included only a few studies with real-world incidents of aggression, and those relied on self-reported measures of aggression rather than observed acts. 8 The authors concluded that "These are not huge effects — not on the order of joining a gang vs. not joining a gang. But it is one risk factor for predicting future aggression and other negative outcomes" (emphasis added).

People do not exist in laboratories; we exist in societies and cultures with complex social systems of rules, expectations, and messages that ameliorate violence-tinged media messages. The vast majority of us can navigate these waters without becoming violent, a fact made evident by the lack of increased violent crime in those who read Grimm's Fairy Tales (stuffing witches in ovens, chopping people up, cannibalism), watched the Looney Tunes , or enjoyed The Three Stooges . Clearly, and thankfully, the relation between violent media messages and violent behavior is more complex and less direct than we fear.

One Small Factor

My argument is not that violent media cannot lead to violent behavior, only that the ways in which it does (and does not) are complex and nuanced. After all, videogame researchers like me can hardly argue that videogames can promote positive behaviors if we are not willing to acknowledge the conditions under which they can lead to undesired behavior as well. So what is the truth that lies between these two positions? We do not (yet) know enough about human beings to provide a definitive answer to this question. No one would disagree that it is possible to create a violent human being by exposing him or her to long-term, consistent messages of violence without any socialization to counteract it; we need only look to the tragic cycle of familial and domestic violence for evidence of that.

If we believe the evidence that suggests games can desensitize those with crippling phobias to the stimuli that trigger their feelings of panic, we can hardly argue that media cannot also desensitize someone to violence. By the same token, however, we must recognize that all the evidence we have shows that media do not desensitize most people. We should not accept that violent videogames (or any other medium) are anything but one small factor in a complex societal issue.

The Right Question

The question we should ask is not whether violent videogames can make people violent — they can, under the right circumstances. That set of circumstances is poorly understood, however, and thankfully quite rare. The real question of interest lies in determining the circumstances and mechanisms by which such changes can occur. This is much more than an academic pursuit; it has the potential to change our society in ways we cannot yet imagine. By asking how instead of whether or if games can create such sociological and behavioral changes, we shift the focus from a dosing model (exposure = change) to a social/cultural/cognitive/emotional explanation of how and under what circumstances beliefs and actions can be changed.

In retrospect, it seems obvious that context determines how people process media messages. For example, we already recognize that violence committed in self-defense is different than unprovoked violence. We provide social venues in which violence is not just allowed, but encouraged (e.g., MMA and American football) — violence that would result in arrest if demonstrated in other social contexts. If we recognize that the context of the violence makes a difference in these examples, we must also accept that violent videogames are subject to the same contextual influences.

Context does not just reduce the likelihood of becoming more aggressive as a result of violent media; it can actually result in positive behavioral outcomes. Research spanning the last 25 years has found that playing a violent videogame with another player (not against them) actually reduced aggression and increased prosocial behavior, 9 has provided evidence of a kind of cathartic effect for violent videogames (players are less aggressive after taking on the role of an avenging assassin in a videogame), 10 and that those who played an automobile racing game were more aggressive (as measured by biometric measures of arousal rather than paper-and-pencil tests) than those who played a shooter game in which they had to kill other human beings. 11 The researchers in the latter study hypothesized that the racing game tapped into real experiences (e.g., road rage, near accidents), whereas players had no related cognitive–emotional experiences to tap into with the shooting game.

Do Videogames Have Special Powers?

Many studies like those described here highlight the importance of the psychological, cognitive, and emotional characteristics of the individuals who consume the media and their social contexts. In this respect, videogames enjoy a distinct advantage over books and movies as media. In life, we are limited to our own experiences; our ability to develop empathy, tolerance, and a strong moral compass are limited to those experiences and the meaning we make within our social contexts. Books and movies, on the other hand, can provide a potentially unlimited set of experiences to make sense of and thus can build empathy through exposing us to virtual experiences of other people who think, act, and behave in ways different from us. The knowledge we gain in the process, by seeing that the ways "different" people, look, sound, and behave does not necessarily lead to "better" or "worse" people, can make us more tolerant and understanding of diversity.

Movies, as a kind of visual storytelling, seem to work in the same way as books; movies like Sophie's Choice (based on the book by the same name) would not work if the viewer did not identify with her in spite of the horrific act of filicide. Yet movies create a layer between the viewer and the medium by forcing a representation of place, time, and characters on the viewer, whereas books force the reader to generate these things. This cognitive act invests the reader in the narrative in some ways more deeply than film can and does so in ways that are correspondingly more connected to our own experiences (since we are most likely to generate people, places, and spaces like those we have experienced). Books also allow us to pause and reflect on decisions that characters make with which we may disagree or find unpalatable, whereas movies are time-based (remote controls notwithstanding) and proceed at their own pace, with less time to consider what we would do next. In both cases, however, we do not really have any control over what happens, and that means we can never really develop a full appreciation of the consequences of one decision over another. We might be sure that we would decide differently ourselves, but without the ability to try, we cannot know how we would feel or come to believe. Videogames do not suffer from this limitation — they allow us to experience both sides of a decision through replayability. Because videogames are dynamic, our choices lead to different outcomes and possibilities, thus promoting a desire to replay.

Can Violent Videogames Make Us More Moral?

In well-defined moral and ethical situations, the inability to experience both sides of an ethical or moral dilemma may have less consequence than with morally and ethically ambiguous situations. What happens, for example, when the protagonist in a book or movie commits acts considered unethical or immoral? Whether "justified" by the context (e.g., revenge, self-preservation), we wonder how we would have behaved and, more importantly, how we would have felt about making each choice. Our sense of morality is developed, in part, through exposure to dilemmas, our exploration of the possible choices, and our evaluation of the consequences of those choices, which involves our emotional responses.

By allowing us to choose what "we" do as the main character, videogames offer us the opportunity to explore all sides of such dilemmas, to experience the results of our choices through observable consequences in the game world, and to evaluate our own reaction to them. 12 This sense of agency, combined with directly observable consequences and replayability, makes videogames just as effective at promoting morality and ethics as for promoting violence. Dozens of digital game-based learning (DGBL) researchers work in this area, 13 but one example shared with me by my colleague, Bob DeSchutter, is illustrative.

In the game Fallout 3 , a post-apocalyptic world destroyed by nuclear war, one of the side quests leads to a community that has evolved for many generations in an isolated environment. At the center of their culture is a tree that holds religious significance for them. This tree turns out to be a human mutant, Harold, who is trapped inside this tree, which began growing out of his head many years ago and in which he is now completely encased. When the player meets Harold, he begs to be put out of his physical and spiritual misery. The community, however, believes such requests are spiritual tests, which they have ignored for years. The community wants Harold's bounty and wisdom (he has given birth to a rich ecosystem) to be spread across the world. The player can choose to commit murder in order to end Harold's suffering, knowing that doing so will also remove the spiritual center of a culture and guarantee the rest of the world remains barren. Or, the player can choose the good of the community, thus ensuring that Harold's torture will never end. There is no right or wrong answer to such moral dilemmas, and forcing the player not just to contemplate the decision but to actually make it and see (and feel) the results is a powerful experience not possible in other media. Because players can replay the scenario and choose differently, they can also explore both sides of the issue; what the game designers then program in as the consequences can play a significant role in helping to make meaning of the experience from a societal perspective.

What (Else) Can We "Learn" from Videogames?

The potential for videogames to promote positive behavioral outcomes is not limited to morality or ethics. Researchers like Ian Bogost, with his work on persuasive games, have shown how games can help us understand complex social problems from a personal perspective and make us more empathetic. For example, his game Fat World places the same geographic and economic constraints on the player as experienced by those who live in poor urban areas. Without access to reliable transportation, players are limited to food in their immediate surroundings, which comprise neighborhood shops with fewer healthy options and a significantly higher-per-capita presence of fast-food restaurants. With price disparities between healthy and unhealthy food and a limited food stamp budget, players must choose whether to buy high quantities of inexpensive, unhealthy food to last their family for a week or more expensive healthy food that may last only a few days. Thus, the game play shows how obesity and diabetes do not necessarily result from conscious choices or lack of willpower, but from complex socio-demographic factors beyond the control of individuals.

In a similar vein, researchers like Pam Kato have shown how games can make us healthier and live longer. Her game, Re-Mission , helped children with cancer understand the effects of their chemotherapy on their cancer (by letting them travel throughout their bodies and "kill" cancer cells using guns that deliver chemotherapy agents) and resulted in significantly higher adherence to their chemotherapy programs. This and hundreds of other studies and researchers have given rise to a field of study called games for health, with its own conferences, journals, and organizations.

Researchers like Jane McGonigal have shown how alternate reality games (ARGs), games that mix the real world with virtual components, can solve social problems. Her games Evolve (identifying and solving local social problems) and World Without Oil (finding solutions to the world's future energy needs) and those of hundreds of other researchers have resulted in millions of people voluntarily working to find solutions to a wide range of social problems.

Researchers like Bob DeSchutter, founder of the Gerontoludic Society, are building games for the elderly, not for cognitive training purposes (which have received dubious empirical support) but for ethical, quality-of-life, and aesthetic reasons. His games and projects have promoted intergenerational familial connections by supporting shared storytelling and shared game play and broadened the already significant games-for-aging arena. And virtual worlds like Snow World (a game for burn victims that has been clinically shown to improve pain management) and an NIH-funded clinical trial of another game shown to reduce PTSD symptoms 14 have extended the power of game technology to the counseling and therapy domains.

Concluding Thoughts

Once again, my argument is not that violent videogames cannot promote aggressive behavior, nor that their ability to promote positive outcomes outweighs that risk. The mere presence of violence in a videogame, however, is insufficient to make any judgment about its potential for good or harm. If we accept that videogames can promote negative outcomes, we must also accept that the opposite is also true. Just as our technologies and definitions of learning have evolved, so must our research questions and practices continue to change. If we are honest with ourselves, we have known for some time that the answer to whether violence in any medium is "good" or "bad" is "it depends." It depends on a variety of social, developmental, emotional, and contextual factors. It depends on the set of circumstances that each person, as an active participant in the meaning-making process, brings to the table. It depends on things we have not yet discovered. In defining these conditions and factors, we will have to leave our preconceived notions and prejudices behind and accept that positive and negative effects may result from "good" or "bad" media. If we fail to remain open to all such possibilities, even those that go against our personal beliefs, we put at risk the very outcome we are trying to achieve — a more just, fair, and moral world for future generations. If we succeed, videogames (even, or perhaps especially, violent ones) may help point the way to a better world.

• Ellen Wartella and Byron Reeves, "Historical trends in research on children and the media: 1900–1960," Journal of Communication, Vol. 35 (Spring 1985): 118–33.
• Craig A. Anderson, Akiko Shibuya, Nobuko Ihori, Edward L. Swing, Brad J. Bushman, Akira Sakamoto, Hannah R. Rothstein, and Muniba Saleem, " Violent video game effects on aggression, empathy, and prosocial behavior in Eastern and Western countries: A meta-analytic review ," Psychological Bulletin , Vol. 136, No. 2 (March 2010): 151–173; Christopher J. Ferguson, Violent Crime: Clinical and Social Implications (Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage, 2010); and Christopher John Ferguson, "The Good, the Bad and the Ugly: A Meta-analytic Review of Positive and Negative Effects of Violent Video Games," Psychiatric Quarterly , Vol. 78, No. 4 (December 2007): 309–316.
• Because of mental or developmental disability or mental illness, for example. See Richard J. Davidson, Katherine M. Putnam, and Christine L. Larson (2000). " Dysfunction in the neural circuitry of emotion regulation—A possible prelude to violence ," Science, Volume 289, No. 5479: 591–594.
• E.g., Christopher J. Ferguson, John Colwell, Boris Mlačić, Goran Milas, and Igor Mikloušic, "Personality and media influences on violence and depression in a cross-national sample of young adults: Data from Mexican-Americans, English and Croatians," Journal of Computers in Human Behavior , Vol. 27, No. 3 (May 2011): 1195–1200.
• Court brief of social scientists, medical scientists, and media effects scholars as amici curiae in support of respondents.
• I've seen one case where a game earned a rating of Teen for "comic mischief" involving throwing ice cream at your friends, while a recent Batman title earned the same rating despite portraying frequent, personal beatings (including personal strangulation and head stomps) of bad guys and a dirty-talking Catwoman with her suit unzipped to show significant cleavage.
• Jillian K. Peterson, Jennifer Skeem, Patrick Kennealy, Beth Bray, and Andrea Zvonkovic, " How often and how consistently do symptoms directly precede criminal behavior among offenders with mental illness? " Law and Human Behavior, Vol. 38, No. 5 (October 2014): 439–449.
• See note 2.
• S. B. Silvern, P. A. Williamson, and T. A. Countermine, "Video game play and social behavior: Preliminary findings , " paper presented at the International Conference on Play and Play Environments (1983b).
• Christopher J. Ferguson and Stephanie M. Rueda, " The Hitman study: Violent Video Game Exposure Effects on Aggressive Behavior, Hostile Feelings, and Depression ," European Psychologist , Vol. 15 No. 2 (2010): 99–108.
• Sarah L. Pearson and Simon Goodson, "Video games and aggression: Using immersive technology to explore the effects of violent content," Proceedings of the North East of England Branch of the BPS Annual Conference , June 26–27, 2009, Sheffield, UK.
• This might be more accurately characterized as co-authoring, since the design decisions made by the game designers also control and constrain the narrative.
• Karolien Poels and Steven Malliet, eds. Vice city virtue: Moral issues in digital game play (Leuven, Belgium: Acco, 2011); and Jose P. Zagal, "Ethically Notable Videogames: Moral Dilemmas and Game Play," Breaking new ground: Innovation in games, play, practice and theory, Proceedings of the 2009 DiGRA conference (2009).
• Daniel Pine, MD, of the NIMH Emotion and Development Branch, Yair Bar-Haim, PhD, School of Psychological Sciences, Tel Aviv University, and colleagues, report on their findings July 24, 2015, National Institute of Mental Health .

Richard Van Eck is associate dean for Teaching and Learning and the founding Dr. David and Lola Rognlie Monson Endowed Professor in Medical Education at the University of North Dakota School of Medicine and Health Sciences. He has studied digital games since his doctoral studies at the University of South Alabama, where he worked on two award-winning science and problem-solving digital games (Adventures in Problem Solving and Ribbit’s Big Splash). His recent work has included consulting on evaluation and game design on several digital STEM games, including PlatinuMath, Project NEO, Project Blackfeather, and Contemporary Studies of the Zombie Apocalypse. He is a frequent keynote speaker and author on the educational potential of videogames at such venues as TEDx Manitoba and SXSW. He also publishes and presents on intelligent tutoring systems, pedagogical agents, authoring tools, and gender and technology.

© 2015 Richard N. Van Eck. This EDUCAUSE Review article is licensed under the Creative Commons BY-NC-SA 4.0 International license

Recent Blog Articles

How well do you score on brain health?

When should your teen or tween start using skin products?

How — and why — to fit more fiber and fermented food into your meals

Protect your skin during heat waves — here's how

Respiratory health harms often follow flooding: Taking these steps can help

Want to cool down? 14 ideas to try

A fresh look at risks for developing young-onset dementia

Are you getting health care you don't need?

Weighing in on weight gain from antidepressants

Dengue fever: What to know and do

Violent video games and young people

Experts are divided about the potential harm, but agree on some steps parents can take to protect children..

Blood and gore. Intense violence. Strong sexual content. Use of drugs. These are just a few of the phrases that the Entertainment Software Rating Board (ESRB) uses to describe the content of several games in the Grand Theft Auto series, one of the most popular video game series among teenagers. The Pew Research Center reported in 2008 that 97% of youths ages 12 to 17 played some type of video game, and that two-thirds of them played action and adventure games that tend to contain violent content. (Other research suggests that boys are more likely to use violent video games, and play them more frequently, than girls.) A separate analysis found that more than half of all video games rated by the ESRB contained violence, including more than 90% of those rated as appropriate for children 10 years or older.

Given how common these games are, it is small wonder that mental health clinicians often find themselves fielding questions from parents who are worried about the impact of violent video games on their children.

The view endorsed by organizations such as the American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP) and the American Academy of Child & Adolescent Psychiatry (AACAP) is that exposure to violent media (including video games) can contribute to real-life violent behavior and harm children in other ways. But other researchers have questioned the validity or applicability of much of the research supporting this view. They argue that most youths are not affected by violent video games. What both sides of this debate agree on is that it is possible for parents to take steps that limit the possible negative effects of video games.

In its most recent policy statement on media violence, which includes discussion of video games as well as television, movies, and music, the AAP cites studies that link exposure to violence in the media with aggression and violent behavior in youths. The AAP policy describes violent video games as one of many influences on behavior, noting that many children's television shows and movies also contain violent scenes. But the authors believe that video games are particularly harmful because they are interactive and encourage role-playing. As such, the authors fear that these games may serve as virtual rehearsals for actual violence.

Both the AAP and AACAP reason that children learn by observing, mimicking, and adopting behaviors — a basic principle of social learning theory. These organizations express concern that exposure to aggressive behavior or violence in video games and other media may, over time, desensitize youths by numbing them emotionally, cause nightmares and sleep problems, impair school performance, and lead to aggressive behavior and bullying.

A 2001 report of the U.S. Surgeon General on the topic of youth violence made a similar judgment. Some meta-analyses of the literature — reviewing psychological research studies and large observational studies — have found an association between violent video games and increased aggressive thinking and behavior in youths. And some casual observers go further, assuming that tragic school shootings prove a link between such games and real-world aggression.

A more nuanced view

In recent years, however, other researchers have challenged the popular view that violent video games are harmful. Several of them contributed papers to a special issue of the Review of General Psychology , published in June 2010 by the American Psychological Association.

In one paper, Dr. Christopher Ferguson, a psychology professor at Texas A&M International University, argued that many studies on the issue of media violence rely on measures to assess aggression that don't correlate with real-world violence — and even more important, many are observational approaches that don't prove cause and effect. He also cited data from federal criminal justice agencies showing that serious violent crimes among youths have decreased since 1996, even as video game sales have soared.

Other researchers have challenged the association between violent video game use and school shootings, noting that most of the young perpetrators had personality traits, such as anger, psychosis, and aggression, that were apparent before the shootings and predisposed them to violence. These factors make it more difficult to accept the playing of violent games as an independent risk factor. A comprehensive report of targeted school violence commissioned by the U.S. Secret Service and Department of Education concluded that more than half of attackers demonstrated interest in violent media, including books, movies, or video games. However, the report cautioned that no particular behavior, including interest in violence, could be used to produce a "profile" of a likely shooter.

The U.S. Department of Justice has funded research at the Center for Mental Health and Media at Massachusetts General Hospital to better determine what impact video games have on young people. Although it is still in the preliminary stages, this research and several other studies suggest that a subset of youths may become more aggressive after playing violent video games. However, in the vast majority of cases, use of violent video games may be part of normal development, especially in boys — and a legitimate source of fun too. Given the likelihood of individual variability, it may be useful to consider the impact of video games within three broad domains: personality, situation, and motivation.

Personality. Two psychologists, Dr. Patrick Markey of Villanova University and Dr. Charlotte Markey of Rutgers University, have presented evidence that some children may become more aggressive as a result of watching and playing violent video games, but that most are not affected. After reviewing the research, they concluded that the combination of three personality traits might be most likely to make an individual act and think aggressively after playing a violent video game. The three traits they identified were high neuroticism (prone to anger and depression, highly emotional, and easily upset), disagreeableness (cold, indifferent to other people), and low levels of conscientiousness (prone to acting without thinking, failing to deliver on promises, breaking rules).

Situation. Dr. Cheryl Olson, cofounder of the Massachusetts General Hospital Center for Mental Health and Media, led a study of 1,254 students in public schools (most were ages 12 to 14) in South Carolina and Pennsylvania. The researchers found that certain situations increased exposure to violent video games — such as locating game consoles and computers in children's bedrooms, and allowing older siblings to share games with younger ones. In this study, children who played video games often with older siblings were twice as likely as other children to play mature-rated games (considered suitable for ages 17 and older).

Motivation. In a three-year study, a team led by Dr. Mizuko Ito, a cultural anthropologist at the University of California, Irvine, both interviewed and observed the online behavior of 800 youths. The researchers concluded that video game play and other online activities have become so ubiquitous among young people that they have altered how young people socialize and learn.

Although adults tend to view video games as isolating and antisocial, other studies found that most young respondents described the games as fun, exciting, something to counter boredom, and something to do with friends. For many youths, violent content is not the main draw. Boys in particular are motivated to play video games in order to compete and win. Seen in this context, use of violent video games may be similar to the type of rough-housing play that boys engage in as part of normal development. Video games offer one more outlet for the competition for status or to establish a pecking order.

What parents can do

Parents can protect their children from potential harm from video games by following a few commonsense strategies — particularly if they are concerned that their children might be vulnerable to the effects of violent content. These simple precautions may help:

Check the ESRB rating to better understand what type of content a video game has.

Play video games with children to better understand the content, and how children react.

Place video consoles and computers in common areas of the home, rather than in children's bedrooms.

Set limits on the amount of time youths can play these games. The AAP recommends two hours or less of total screen time per day, including television, computers, and video games.

Encourage participation in sports or school activities in which youths can interact with peers in person rather than online.

Video games share much in common with other pursuits that are enjoyable and rewarding, but may become hazardous in certain contexts. Parents can best protect their children by remaining engaged with them and providing limits and guidance as necessary.

American Academy of Child & Adolescent Psychiatry. Children and Video Games: Playing with Violence (Facts for Families, updated Aug. 2006).

American Academy of Pediatrics. "Policy Statement — Media Violence," Pediatrics (Nov. 2009): Vol. 124, No. 5, pp. 1495–503.

Anderson CA, et al. "Violent Video Game Effects on Aggression, Empathy, and Prosocial Behavior in Eastern and Western Countries: A Meta-Analytic Review," Psychological Bulletin (March 2010): Vol. 136, No. 2, pp. 151–73.

Ferguson CJ. "Blazing Angels or Resident Evil? Can Violent Video Games Be a Force for Good?" Review of General Psychology (June 2010): Vol. 14, No. 2, pp. 68–81.

Ito M, et al. Living and Learning with New Media: Summary of Findings from the Digital Youth Project (The John D. and Catherine T. MacArthur Foundation, 2008).

Lenhart A, et al. Teens, Video Games, and Civics (Pew Internet & American Life Project, 2008).

Markey PM, et al. "Vulnerability to Violent Video Games: A Review and Integration of Personality Research," Review of General Psychology (June 2010): Vol. 14, No. 2, pp. 82–91.

Olson CK. "Children's Motivations for Video Game Play in the Context of Normal Development," Review of General Psychology (June 2010): Vol. 14, No. 2, pp. 180–87.

Olson CK, et al. "Factors Correlated with Violent Video Game Use by Adolescent Boys and Girls," Journal of Adolescent Health (July 2007): Vol. 41, No. 1, pp. 77–83.

For more references, please see /mentalextra .

Disclaimer:

As a service to our readers, Harvard Health Publishing provides access to our library of archived content. Please note the date of last review or update on all articles.

No content on this site, regardless of date, should ever be used as a substitute for direct medical advice from your doctor or other qualified clinician.

Free Healthbeat Signup

Get the latest in health news delivered to your inbox!

Thanks for visiting. Don't miss your FREE gift.

The Best Diets for Cognitive Fitness , is yours absolutely FREE when you sign up to receive Health Alerts from Harvard Medical School

Sign up to get tips for living a healthy lifestyle, with ways to fight inflammation and improve cognitive health , plus the latest advances in preventative medicine, diet and exercise , pain relief, blood pressure and cholesterol management, and more.

Health Alerts from Harvard Medical School

Get helpful tips and guidance for everything from fighting inflammation to finding the best diets for weight loss ...from exercises to build a stronger core to advice on treating cataracts . PLUS, the latest news on medical advances and breakthroughs from Harvard Medical School experts.

BONUS! Sign up now and get a FREE copy of the Best Diets for Cognitive Fitness

Stay on top of latest health news from Harvard Medical School.

Plus, get a FREE copy of the Best Diets for Cognitive Fitness .

APA Reaffirms Position on Violent Video Games and Violent Behavior

• Physical Abuse and Violence
• Video Games

Cautions against oversimplification of complex issue

WASHINGTON — There is insufficient scientific evidence to support a causal link between violent video games and violent behavior, according to an updated resolution (PDF, 60KB) adopted by the American Psychological Association. 

APA’s governing Council of Representatives seated a task force to review its August 2015 resolution in light of many occasions in which members of the media or policymakers have cited that resolution as evidence that violent video games are the cause of violent behavior, including mass shootings.

“Violence is a complex social problem that likely stems from many factors that warrant attention from researchers, policymakers and the public,” said APA President Sandra L. Shullman, PhD. “Attributing violence to video gaming is not scientifically sound and draws attention away from other factors, such as a history of violence, which we know from the research is a major predictor of future violence.”

The 2015 resolution was updated by the Council of Representatives on March 1 with this caution. Based on a review of the current literature, the new task force report (PDF, 285KB) reaffirms that there is a small, reliable association between violent video game use and aggressive outcomes, such as yelling and pushing. However, these research findings are difficult to extend to more violent outcomes. These findings mirror those of an APA literature review (PDF, 413KB) conducted in 2015. 

APA has worked for years to study the effects of video games and other media on children while encouraging the industry to design video games with adequate parental controls. It has also pushed to refine the video game rating system to reflect the levels and characteristics of violence in these games.

APA will continue to work closely with school officials and community leaders to raise awareness about the issue, the resolution said.

Kim I. Mills

(202) 336-6048

Is Playing Violent Video Games Related to Teens' Mental Health?

New research indicates that video games are not as bad as we once feared..

Posted February 25, 2021 | Reviewed by Matt Huston

Key Points:

• Two recent studies provide insight into whether playing violent video games is related to mental health or aggression .
• Teens who had consistently played violent games for years also reported higher aggression compared to those with gaming patterns that changed over time.
• Researchers found no links between violent video game play and anxiety , depression , somatic symptoms, or ADHD after two years.

With so many kids still home this year, and an apparent increase in the number of teens and adults playing video games, it seems appropriate to re-examine the evidence on whether aggression in video games is associated with problems for adolescents or society. A special issue of Cyberpsychology, Behavior, and Social Networking published in January did just that. As a parent of three—aware of how video games can suck kids in—and a psychologist working at a social innovation lab that has been a leader in the games for health movement, I’m eager to look at studies that examine teens’ violent video game play and any effects later on in life. I asked, in the ongoing conversation about whether playing games like Fortnite makes teens more aggressive, depressed, or anxious, what do we now know?

After a few decades of research in this area, the answer is not definitive . There was a slew of studies in the early 2000s showing a link between violent video game play and aggressive behavior, and a subsequent onslaught of studies showing that the aggression was very slight and likely due to competition rather than the violent nature of the games themselves. For example, studies showed that people got just as aggressive when they lost at games like Mario Kart as when they lost a much more violent game such as Fortnite . It was likely the frustration of losing rather than the violence that caused people to act aggressively.

Looking at Mental Health and Gaming Over Time

Two studies in the January special issue add to the evidence showing that violent video games may not be as dangerous as they have been made out to be. These studies are unique because they looked at large samples of youth over long periods of time. This line of research helps us to consider whether extensive play in a real-world environment (i.e., living rooms, not labs) is associated with mental health functioning later on in the teen and young adult years.

The first study revisited the long-standing debate over whether violent video game play is associated with aggression and mental health symptoms in young adulthood. The study reported on 322 American teens, ages 10 to 13 at the outset, who were interviewed every year for 10 years. The study looked at patterns of violent video game play, and found three such patterns over time: high initial violence (those who played violent games when they were young and then reduced their play over time); moderates (those whose exposure to violent games was moderate but consistent throughout adolescence ); and low-increasers (those who started with low exposure to violent games, and then increased slightly over time). Most kids were low-increasers, and kids who started out with high depression scores were more likely to be in the high initial violence group. Only the kids in the moderates group were more likely to show aggressive behavior than the other two groups.

The researchers concluded that it was sustained violent game play over many years that was predictive of aggressive behavior, not the intensity of the violence alone or the degree of exposure for shorter periods. Importantly, none of the three exposure groups predicted either depression or anxiety, nor did any predict differences in prosocial behavior such as helping others.

The second study was even larger, following 3,000 adolescents from Singapore, and looking at whether playing violent video games was associated with mental health problems two years later. Results showed that neither violent video game play, nor video game time overall, predicted anxiety, depression, somatic symptoms, or attention deficit hyperactivity disorder after two years. Consistent with many previous studies, mental health symptoms at the beginning of the study were predictive of symptoms two years later. In short, no connection was found between video games and the mental health functioning of youth.

Taken together, these studies suggest that predispositions to mental health problems like depression and anxiety are more important to pay attention to than video game exposure, violent or not. There is also an implication that any potential effects of violent video games on aggressive behavior would tend to show up when use is prolonged—though the research did not show that gaming itself necessarily causes the aggressive behavior.

So, Should Parents Be Concerned?

These findings are helpful during a year when many kids have no doubt had unprecedented exposure to video games, some of them violent. The most current evidence is telling us that these games are not likely to make our kids more anxious, depressed, aggressive, or violent.

Do parents still need to watch our children’s screen time ? Yes, as too much video game play takes kids away from other valuable activities for their social, emotional, and creative development, such as using their imagination and making things that have not been given to them by programmers (stories, art, structures, fantasy play). Do parents need to be freaking out that our kids trying to find the "imposter" in a game will make them more likely to hit their friends when they are back together in person? Probably not.

We still need to pay attention to mental health symptoms; teens appear to be feeling the effects of the pandemic more than adults, and levels of depression and anxiety have reached unprecedented heights.

So let’s say the quiet part out loud: if they’re using video games to cope right now, it’s not the end of the world, and if they’re struggling psychologically, we should not be blaming the games. Normal elements of daily life have been reduced for teenagers during what should be their most expansive years, for what has become an increasingly large percentage of their lives. It is untenable, and even still, teens are showing us what they always do—that they are adaptive and resilient , and natural harm reduction experts.

As parents, let’s stay plugged in to what they’re going through, and think more about how games can be supportive of well-being. It’s needed now more than ever.

LinkedIn and Facebook image: Monkey Business Images/Shutterstock

Coyne, S. M., & Stockdale, L. (2020). Growing Up with Grand Theft Auto: A 10-Year Study of Longitudinal Growth of Violent Video Game Play in Adolescents. Cyberpsychology, Behavior, and Social Networking, 24(1), 11–16. https://doi.org/10.1089/cyber.2020.0049

Ferguson, C. J., & Wang, C. K. J. (2020). Aggressive Video Games Are Not a Risk Factor for Mental Health Problems in Youth: A Longitudinal Study. Cyberpsychology, Behavior, and Social Networking, 24(1), 70–73. https://doi.org/10.1089/cyber.2020.0027

Kato, P. M., Cole, S. W., Bradlyn, A. S., & Pollock, B. H. (2008). A Video Game Improves Behavioral Outcomes in Adolescents and Young Adults With Cancer: A Randomized Trial. Pediatrics, 122(2), e305–e317. https://doi.org/10.1542/peds.2007-3134

Przybylski, A. K., & Weinstein, N. (n.d.). Violent video game engagement is not associated with adolescents’ aggressive behaviour: Evidence from a registered report. Royal Society Open Science, 6(2), 171474. https://doi.org/10.1098/rsos.171474

Danielle Ramo, Ph.D. , is a clinical psychologist, researcher in digital mental health and substance use, and Chief Clinical Officer at BeMe Health, a mobile mental health platform designed to improve teen wellbeing.

• Find a Therapist
• Find a Treatment Center
• Find a Psychiatrist
• Find a Support Group
• Find Online Therapy
• United States
• Brooklyn, NY
• Chicago, IL
• Houston, TX
• Los Angeles, CA
• New York, NY
• Portland, OR
• San Diego, CA
• San Francisco, CA
• Seattle, WA
• Washington, DC
• Asperger's
• Bipolar Disorder
• Chronic Pain
• Eating Disorders
• Passive Aggression
• Personality
• Goal Setting
• Positive Psychology
• Stopping Smoking
• Low Sexual Desire
• Relationships
• Child Development
• Self Tests NEW
• Therapy Center
• Diagnosis Dictionary
• Types of Therapy

Sticking up for yourself is no easy task. But there are concrete skills you can use to hone your assertiveness and advocate for yourself.

• Emotional Intelligence
• Gaslighting
• Affective Forecasting
• Neuroscience

Thank you for visiting nature.com. You are using a browser version with limited support for CSS. To obtain the best experience, we recommend you use a more up to date browser (or turn off compatibility mode in Internet Explorer). In the meantime, to ensure continued support, we are displaying the site without styles and JavaScript.

• View all journals
• Explore content
• About the journal
• Publish with us
• Sign up for alerts
• Open access
• Published: 13 March 2018

Does playing violent video games cause aggression? A longitudinal intervention study

• Simone Kühn 1 , 2 ,
• Dimitrij Tycho Kugler 2 ,
• Katharina Schmalen 1 ,
• Markus Weichenberger 1 ,
• Charlotte Witt 1 &
• Jürgen Gallinat 2  

Molecular Psychiatry volume  24 ,  pages 1220–1234 ( 2019 ) Cite this article

556k Accesses

109 Citations

2354 Altmetric

Metrics details

• Neuroscience

It is a widespread concern that violent video games promote aggression, reduce pro-social behaviour, increase impulsivity and interfere with cognition as well as mood in its players. Previous experimental studies have focussed on short-term effects of violent video gameplay on aggression, yet there are reasons to believe that these effects are mostly the result of priming. In contrast, the present study is the first to investigate the effects of long-term violent video gameplay using a large battery of tests spanning questionnaires, behavioural measures of aggression, sexist attitudes, empathy and interpersonal competencies, impulsivity-related constructs (such as sensation seeking, boredom proneness, risk taking, delay discounting), mental health (depressivity, anxiety) as well as executive control functions, before and after 2 months of gameplay. Our participants played the violent video game Grand Theft Auto V, the non-violent video game The Sims 3 or no game at all for 2 months on a daily basis. No significant changes were observed, neither when comparing the group playing a violent video game to a group playing a non-violent game, nor to a passive control group. Also, no effects were observed between baseline and posttest directly after the intervention, nor between baseline and a follow-up assessment 2 months after the intervention period had ended. The present results thus provide strong evidence against the frequently debated negative effects of playing violent video games in adults and will therefore help to communicate a more realistic scientific perspective on the effects of violent video gaming.

Similar content being viewed by others

The associations between autistic characteristics and microtransaction spending

No effect of short term exposure to gambling like reward systems on post game risk taking

Increasing prosocial behavior and decreasing selfishness in the lab and everyday life

The concern that violent video games may promote aggression or reduce empathy in its players is pervasive and given the popularity of these games their psychological impact is an urgent issue for society at large. Contrary to the custom, this topic has also been passionately debated in the scientific literature. One research camp has strongly argued that violent video games increase aggression in its players [ 1 , 2 ], whereas the other camp [ 3 , 4 ] repeatedly concluded that the effects are minimal at best, if not absent. Importantly, it appears that these fundamental inconsistencies cannot be attributed to differences in research methodology since even meta-analyses, with the goal to integrate the results of all prior studies on the topic of aggression caused by video games led to disparate conclusions [ 2 , 3 ]. These meta-analyses had a strong focus on children, and one of them [ 2 ] reported a marginal age effect suggesting that children might be even more susceptible to violent video game effects.

To unravel this topic of research, we designed a randomised controlled trial on adults to draw causal conclusions on the influence of video games on aggression. At present, almost all experimental studies targeting the effects of violent video games on aggression and/or empathy focussed on the effects of short-term video gameplay. In these studies the duration for which participants were instructed to play the games ranged from 4 min to maximally 2 h (mean = 22 min, median = 15 min, when considering all experimental studies reviewed in two of the recent major meta-analyses in the field [ 3 , 5 ]) and most frequently the effects of video gaming have been tested directly after gameplay.

It has been suggested that the effects of studies focussing on consequences of short-term video gameplay (mostly conducted on college student populations) are mainly the result of priming effects, meaning that exposure to violent content increases the accessibility of aggressive thoughts and affect when participants are in the immediate situation [ 6 ]. However, above and beyond this the General Aggression Model (GAM, [ 7 ]) assumes that repeatedly primed thoughts and feelings influence the perception of ongoing events and therewith elicits aggressive behaviour as a long-term effect. We think that priming effects are interesting and worthwhile exploring, but in contrast to the notion of the GAM our reading of the literature is that priming effects are short-lived (suggested to only last for <5 min and may potentially reverse after that time [ 8 ]). Priming effects should therefore only play a role in very close temporal proximity to gameplay. Moreover, there are a multitude of studies on college students that have failed to replicate priming effects [ 9 , 10 , 11 ] and associated predictions of the so-called GAM such as a desensitisation against violent content [ 12 , 13 , 14 ] in adolescents and college students or a decrease of empathy [ 15 ] and pro-social behaviour [ 16 , 17 ] as a result of playing violent video games.

However, in our view the question that society is actually interested in is not: “Are people more aggressive after having played violent video games for a few minutes? And are these people more aggressive minutes after gameplay ended?”, but rather “What are the effects of frequent, habitual violent video game playing? And for how long do these effects persist (not in the range of minutes but rather weeks and months)?” For this reason studies are needed in which participants are trained over longer periods of time, tested after a longer delay after acute playing and tested with broader batteries assessing aggression but also other relevant domains such as empathy as well as mood and cognition. Moreover, long-term follow-up assessments are needed to demonstrate long-term effects of frequent violent video gameplay. To fill this gap, we set out to expose adult participants to two different types of video games for a period of 2 months and investigate changes in measures of various constructs of interest at least one day after the last gaming session and test them once more 2 months after the end of the gameplay intervention. In contrast to the GAM, we hypothesised no increases of aggression or decreases in pro-social behaviour even after long-term exposure to a violent video game due to our reasoning that priming effects of violent video games are short-lived and should therefore not influence measures of aggression if they are not measured directly after acute gaming. In the present study, we assessed potential changes in the following domains: behavioural as well as questionnaire measures of aggression, empathy and interpersonal competencies, impulsivity-related constructs (such as sensation seeking, boredom proneness, risk taking, delay discounting), and depressivity and anxiety as well as executive control functions. As the effects on aggression and pro-social behaviour were the core targets of the present study, we implemented multiple tests for these domains. This broad range of domains with its wide coverage and the longitudinal nature of the study design enabled us to draw more general conclusions regarding the causal effects of violent video games.

Materials and methods

Participants.

Ninety healthy participants (mean age = 28 years, SD = 7.3, range: 18–45, 48 females) were recruited by means of flyers and internet advertisements. The sample consisted of college students as well as of participants from the general community. The advertisement mentioned that we were recruiting for a longitudinal study on video gaming, but did not mention that we would offer an intervention or that we were expecting training effects. Participants were randomly assigned to the three groups ruling out self-selection effects. The sample size was based on estimates from a previous study with a similar design [ 18 ]. After complete description of the study, the participants’ informed written consent was obtained. The local ethics committee of the Charité University Clinic, Germany, approved of the study. We included participants that reported little, preferably no video game usage in the past 6 months (none of the participants ever played the game Grand Theft Auto V (GTA) or Sims 3 in any of its versions before). We excluded participants with psychological or neurological problems. The participants received financial compensation for the testing sessions (200 Euros) and performance-dependent additional payment for two behavioural tasks detailed below, but received no money for the training itself.

Training procedure

The violent video game group (5 participants dropped out between pre- and posttest, resulting in a group of n  = 25, mean age = 26.6 years, SD = 6.0, 14 females) played the game Grand Theft Auto V on a Playstation 3 console over a period of 8 weeks. The active control group played the non-violent video game Sims 3 on the same console (6 participants dropped out, resulting in a group of n  = 24, mean age = 25.8 years, SD = 6.8, 12 females). The passive control group (2 participants dropped out, resulting in a group of n  = 28, mean age = 30.9 years, SD = 8.4, 12 females) was not given a gaming console and had no task but underwent the same testing procedure as the two other groups. The passive control group was not aware of the fact that they were part of a control group to prevent self-training attempts. The experimenters testing the participants were blind to group membership, but we were unable to prevent participants from talking about the game during testing, which in some cases lead to an unblinding of experimental condition. Both training groups were instructed to play the game for at least 30 min a day. Participants were only reimbursed for the sessions in which they came to the lab. Our previous research suggests that the perceived fun in gaming was positively associated with training outcome [ 18 ] and we speculated that enforcing training sessions through payment would impair motivation and thus diminish the potential effect of the intervention. Participants underwent a testing session before (baseline) and after the training period of 2 months (posttest 1) as well as a follow-up testing sessions 2 months after the training period (posttest 2).

Grand Theft Auto V (GTA)

GTA is an action-adventure video game situated in a fictional highly violent game world in which players are rewarded for their use of violence as a means to advance in the game. The single-player story follows three criminals and their efforts to commit heists while under pressure from a government agency. The gameplay focuses on an open world (sandbox game) where the player can choose between different behaviours. The game also allows the player to engage in various side activities, such as action-adventure, driving, third-person shooting, occasional role-playing, stealth and racing elements. The open world design lets players freely roam around the fictional world so that gamers could in principle decide not to commit violent acts.

The Sims 3 (Sims)

Sims is a life simulation game and also classified as a sandbox game because it lacks clearly defined goals. The player creates virtual individuals called “Sims”, and customises their appearance, their personalities and places them in a home, directs their moods, satisfies their desires and accompanies them in their daily activities and by becoming part of a social network. It offers opportunities, which the player may choose to pursue or to refuse, similar as GTA but is generally considered as a pro-social and clearly non-violent game.

Assessment battery

To assess aggression and associated constructs we used the following questionnaires: Buss–Perry Aggression Questionnaire [ 19 ], State Hostility Scale [ 20 ], Updated Illinois Rape Myth Acceptance Scale [ 21 , 22 ], Moral Disengagement Scale [ 23 , 24 ], the Rosenzweig Picture Frustration Test [ 25 , 26 ] and a so-called World View Measure [ 27 ]. All of these measures have previously been used in research investigating the effects of violent video gameplay, however, the first two most prominently. Additionally, behavioural measures of aggression were used: a Word Completion Task, a Lexical Decision Task [ 28 ] and the Delay frustration task [ 29 ] (an inter-correlation matrix is depicted in Supplementary Figure 1 1). From these behavioural measures, the first two were previously used in research on the effects of violent video gameplay. To assess variables that have been related to the construct of impulsivity, we used the Brief Sensation Seeking Scale [ 30 ] and the Boredom Propensity Scale [ 31 ] as well as tasks assessing risk taking and delay discounting behaviourally, namely the Balloon Analogue Risk Task [ 32 ] and a Delay-Discounting Task [ 33 ]. To quantify pro-social behaviour, we employed: Interpersonal Reactivity Index [ 34 ] (frequently used in research on the effects of violent video gameplay), Balanced Emotional Empathy Scale [ 35 ], Reading the Mind in the Eyes test [ 36 ], Interpersonal Competence Questionnaire [ 37 ] and Richardson Conflict Response Questionnaire [ 38 ]. To assess depressivity and anxiety, which has previously been associated with intense video game playing [ 39 ], we used Beck Depression Inventory [ 40 ] and State Trait Anxiety Inventory [ 41 ]. To characterise executive control function, we used a Stop Signal Task [ 42 ], a Multi-Source Interference Task [ 43 ] and a Task Switching Task [ 44 ] which have all been previously used to assess effects of video gameplay. More details on all instruments used can be found in the Supplementary Material.

Data analysis

On the basis of the research question whether violent video game playing enhances aggression and reduces empathy, the focus of the present analysis was on time by group interactions. We conducted these interaction analyses separately, comparing the violent video game group against the active control group (GTA vs. Sims) and separately against the passive control group (GTA vs. Controls) that did not receive any intervention and separately for the potential changes during the intervention period (baseline vs. posttest 1) and to test for potential long-term changes (baseline vs. posttest 2). We employed classical frequentist statistics running a repeated-measures ANOVA controlling for the covariates sex and age.

Since we collected 52 separate outcome variables and conduced four different tests with each (GTA vs. Sims, GTA vs. Controls, crossed with baseline vs. posttest 1, baseline vs. posttest 2), we had to conduct 52 × 4 = 208 frequentist statistical tests. Setting the alpha value to 0.05 means that by pure chance about 10.4 analyses should become significant. To account for this multiple testing problem and the associated alpha inflation, we conducted a Bonferroni correction. According to Bonferroni, the critical value for the entire set of n tests is set to an alpha value of 0.05 by taking alpha/ n  = 0.00024.

Since the Bonferroni correction has sometimes been criticised as overly conservative, we conducted false discovery rate (FDR) correction [ 45 ]. FDR correction also determines adjusted p -values for each test, however, it controls only for the number of false discoveries in those tests that result in a discovery (namely a significant result).

Moreover, we tested for group differences at the baseline assessment using independent t -tests, since those may hamper the interpretation of significant interactions between group and time that we were primarily interested in.

Since the frequentist framework does not enable to evaluate whether the observed null effect of the hypothesised interaction is indicative of the absence of a relation between violent video gaming and our dependent variables, the amount of evidence in favour of the null hypothesis has been tested using a Bayesian framework. Within the Bayesian framework both the evidence in favour of the null and the alternative hypothesis are directly computed based on the observed data, giving rise to the possibility of comparing the two. We conducted Bayesian repeated-measures ANOVAs comparing the model in favour of the null and the model in favour of the alternative hypothesis resulting in a Bayes factor (BF) using Bayesian Information criteria [ 46 ]. The BF 01 suggests how much more likely the data is to occur under the null hypothesis. All analyses were performed using the JASP software package ( https://jasp-stats.org ).

Sex distribution in the present study did not differ across the groups ( χ 2 p -value > 0.414). However, due to the fact that differences between males and females have been observed in terms of aggression and empathy [ 47 ], we present analyses controlling for sex. Since our random assignment to the three groups did result in significant age differences between groups, with the passive control group being significantly older than the GTA ( t (51) = −2.10, p  = 0.041) and the Sims group ( t (50) = −2.38, p  = 0.021), we also controlled for age.

The participants in the violent video game group played on average 35 h and the non-violent video game group 32 h spread out across the 8 weeks interval (with no significant group difference p  = 0.48).

To test whether participants assigned to the violent GTA game show emotional, cognitive and behavioural changes, we present the results of repeated-measure ANOVA time x group interaction analyses separately for GTA vs. Sims and GTA vs. Controls (Tables  1 – 3 ). Moreover, we split the analyses according to the time domain into effects from baseline assessment to posttest 1 (Table  2 ) and effects from baseline assessment to posttest 2 (Table  3 ) to capture more long-lasting or evolving effects. In addition to the statistical test values, we report partial omega squared ( ω 2 ) as an effect size measure. Next to the classical frequentist statistics, we report the results of a Bayesian statistical approach, namely BF 01 , the likelihood with which the data is to occur under the null hypothesis that there is no significant time × group interaction. In Table  2 , we report the presence of significant group differences at baseline in the right most column.

Since we conducted 208 separate frequentist tests we expected 10.4 significant effects simply by chance when setting the alpha value to 0.05. In fact we found only eight significant time × group interactions (these are marked with an asterisk in Tables  2 and 3 ).

When applying a conservative Bonferroni correction, none of those tests survive the corrected threshold of p  < 0.00024. Neither does any test survive the more lenient FDR correction. The arithmetic mean of the frequentist test statistics likewise shows that on average no significant effect was found (bottom rows in Tables  2 and 3 ).

In line with the findings from a frequentist approach, the harmonic mean of the Bayesian factor BF 01 is consistently above one but not very far from one. This likewise suggests that there is very likely no interaction between group × time and therewith no detrimental effects of the violent video game GTA in the domains tested. The evidence in favour of the null hypothesis based on the Bayes factor is not massive, but clearly above 1. Some of the harmonic means are above 1.6 and constitute substantial evidence [ 48 ]. However, the harmonic mean has been criticised as unstable. Owing to the fact that the sum is dominated by occasional small terms in the likelihood, one may underestimate the actual evidence in favour of the null hypothesis [ 49 ].

To test the sensitivity of the present study to detect relevant effects we computed the effect size that we would have been able to detect. The information we used consisted of alpha error probability = 0.05, power = 0.95, our sample size, number of groups and of measurement occasions and correlation between the repeated measures at posttest 1 and posttest 2 (average r  = 0.68). According to G*Power [ 50 ], we could detect small effect sizes of f  = 0.16 (equals η 2  = 0.025 and r  = 0.16) in each separate test. When accounting for the conservative Bonferroni-corrected p -value of 0.00024, still a medium effect size of f  = 0.23 (equals η 2  = 0.05 and r  = 0.22) would have been detectable. A meta-analysis by Anderson [ 2 ] reported an average effects size of r  = 0.18 for experimental studies testing for aggressive behaviour and another by Greitmeyer [ 5 ] reported average effect sizes of r  = 0.19, 0.25 and 0.17 for effects of violent games on aggressive behaviour, cognition and affect, all of which should have been detectable at least before multiple test correction.

Within the scope of the present study we tested the potential effects of playing the violent video game GTA V for 2 months against an active control group that played the non-violent, rather pro-social life simulation game The Sims 3 and a passive control group. Participants were tested before and after the long-term intervention and at a follow-up appointment 2 months later. Although we used a comprehensive test battery consisting of questionnaires and computerised behavioural tests assessing aggression, impulsivity-related constructs, mood, anxiety, empathy, interpersonal competencies and executive control functions, we did not find relevant negative effects in response to violent video game playing. In fact, only three tests of the 208 statistical tests performed showed a significant interaction pattern that would be in line with this hypothesis. Since at least ten significant effects would be expected purely by chance, we conclude that there were no detrimental effects of violent video gameplay.

This finding stands in contrast to some experimental studies, in which short-term effects of violent video game exposure have been investigated and where increases in aggressive thoughts and affect as well as decreases in helping behaviour have been observed [ 1 ]. However, these effects of violent video gaming on aggressiveness—if present at all (see above)—seem to be rather short-lived, potentially lasting <15 min [ 8 , 51 ]. In addition, these short-term effects of video gaming are far from consistent as multiple studies fail to demonstrate or replicate them [ 16 , 17 ]. This may in part be due to problems, that are very prominent in this field of research, namely that the outcome measures of aggression and pro-social behaviour, are poorly standardised, do not easily generalise to real-life behaviour and may have lead to selective reporting of the results [ 3 ]. We tried to address these concerns by including a large set of outcome measures that were mostly inspired by previous studies demonstrating effects of short-term violent video gameplay on aggressive behaviour and thoughts, that we report exhaustively.

Since effects observed only for a few minutes after short sessions of video gaming are not representative of what society at large is actually interested in, namely how habitual violent video gameplay affects behaviour on a more long-term basis, studies employing longer training intervals are highly relevant. Two previous studies have employed longer training intervals. In an online study, participants with a broad age range (14–68 years) have been trained in a violent video game for 4 weeks [ 52 ]. In comparison to a passive control group no changes were observed, neither in aggression-related beliefs, nor in aggressive social interactions assessed by means of two questions. In a more recent study, participants played a previous version of GTA for 12 h spread across 3 weeks [ 53 ]. Participants were compared to a passive control group using the Buss–Perry aggression questionnaire, a questionnaire assessing impulsive or reactive aggression, attitude towards violence, and empathy. The authors only report a limited increase in pro-violent attitude. Unfortunately, this study only assessed posttest measures, which precludes the assessment of actual changes caused by the game intervention.

The present study goes beyond these studies by showing that 2 months of violent video gameplay does neither lead to any significant negative effects in a broad assessment battery administered directly after the intervention nor at a follow-up assessment 2 months after the intervention. The fact that we assessed multiple domains, not finding an effect in any of them, makes the present study the most comprehensive in the field. Our battery included self-report instruments on aggression (Buss–Perry aggression questionnaire, State Hostility scale, Illinois Rape Myth Acceptance scale, Moral Disengagement scale, World View Measure and Rosenzweig Picture Frustration test) as well as computer-based tests measuring aggressive behaviour such as the delay frustration task and measuring the availability of aggressive words using the word completion test and a lexical decision task. Moreover, we assessed impulse-related concepts such as sensation seeking, boredom proneness and associated behavioural measures such as the computerised Balloon analogue risk task, and delay discounting. Four scales assessing empathy and interpersonal competence scales, including the reading the mind in the eyes test revealed no effects of violent video gameplay. Neither did we find any effects on depressivity (Becks depression inventory) nor anxiety measured as a state as well as a trait. This is an important point, since several studies reported higher rates of depressivity and anxiety in populations of habitual video gamers [ 54 , 55 ]. Last but not least, our results revealed also no substantial changes in executive control tasks performance, neither in the Stop signal task, the Multi-source interference task or a Task switching task. Previous studies have shown higher performance of habitual action video gamers in executive tasks such as task switching [ 56 , 57 , 58 ] and another study suggests that training with action video games improves task performance that relates to executive functions [ 59 ], however, these associations were not confirmed by a meta-analysis in the field [ 60 ]. The absence of changes in the stop signal task fits well with previous studies that likewise revealed no difference between in habitual action video gamers and controls in terms of action inhibition [ 61 , 62 ]. Although GTA does not qualify as a classical first-person shooter as most of the previously tested action video games, it is classified as an action-adventure game and shares multiple features with those action video games previously related to increases in executive function, including the need for hand–eye coordination and fast reaction times.

Taken together, the findings of the present study show that an extensive game intervention over the course of 2 months did not reveal any specific changes in aggression, empathy, interpersonal competencies, impulsivity-related constructs, depressivity, anxiety or executive control functions; neither in comparison to an active control group that played a non-violent video game nor to a passive control group. We observed no effects when comparing a baseline and a post-training assessment, nor when focussing on more long-term effects between baseline and a follow-up interval 2 months after the participants stopped training. To our knowledge, the present study employed the most comprehensive test battery spanning a multitude of domains in which changes due to violent video games may have been expected. Therefore the present results provide strong evidence against the frequently debated negative effects of playing violent video games. This debate has mostly been informed by studies showing short-term effects of violent video games when tests were administered immediately after a short playtime of a few minutes; effects that may in large be caused by short-lived priming effects that vanish after minutes. The presented results will therefore help to communicate a more realistic scientific perspective of the real-life effects of violent video gaming. However, future research is needed to demonstrate the absence of effects of violent video gameplay in children.

Anderson CA, Bushman BJ. Effects of violent video games on aggressive behavior, aggressive cognition, aggressive affect, physiological arousal, and prosocial behavior: a meta-analytic review of the scientific literature. Psychol Sci. 2001;12:353–9.

Article   CAS   Google Scholar  

Anderson CA, Shibuya A, Ihori N, Swing EL, Bushman BJ, Sakamoto A, et al. Violent video game effects on aggression, empathy, and prosocial behavior in eastern and western countries: a meta-analytic review. Psychol Bull. 2010;136:151–73.

Article   Google Scholar  

Ferguson CJ. Do angry birds make for angry children? A meta-analysis of video game influences on children’s and adolescents’ aggression, mental health, prosocial behavior, and academic performance. Perspect Psychol Sci. 2015;10:646–66.

Ferguson CJ, Kilburn J. Much ado about nothing: the misestimation and overinterpretation of violent video game effects in eastern and western nations: comment on Anderson et al. (2010). Psychol Bull. 2010;136:174–8.

Greitemeyer T, Mugge DO. Video games do affect social outcomes: a meta-analytic review of the effects of violent and prosocial video game play. Pers Soc Psychol Bull. 2014;40:578–89.

Anderson CA, Carnagey NL, Eubanks J. Exposure to violent media: The effects of songs with violent lyrics on aggressive thoughts and feelings. J Pers Soc Psychol. 2003;84:960–71.

DeWall CN, Anderson CA, Bushman BJ. The general aggression model: theoretical extensions to violence. Psychol Violence. 2011;1:245–58.

Sestire MA, Bartholow BD. Violent and non-violent video games produce opposing effects on aggressive and prosocial outcomes. J Exp Soc Psychol. 2010;46:934–42.

Kneer J, Elson M, Knapp F. Fight fire with rainbows: The effects of displayed violence, difficulty, and performance in digital games on affect, aggression, and physiological arousal. Comput Hum Behav. 2016;54:142–8.

Kneer J, Glock S, Beskes S, Bente G. Are digital games perceived as fun or danger? Supporting and suppressing different game-related concepts. Cyber Beh Soc N. 2012;15:604–9.

Sauer JD, Drummond A, Nova N. Violent video games: the effects of narrative context and reward structure on in-game and postgame aggression. J Exp Psychol Appl. 2015;21:205–14.

Ballard M, Visser K, Jocoy K. Social context and video game play: impact on cardiovascular and affective responses. Mass Commun Soc. 2012;15:875–98.

Read GL, Ballard M, Emery LJ, Bazzini DG. Examining desensitization using facial electromyography: violent video games, gender, and affective responding. Comput Hum Behav. 2016;62:201–11.

Szycik GR, Mohammadi B, Hake M, Kneer J, Samii A, Munte TF, et al. Excessive users of violent video games do not show emotional desensitization: an fMRI study. Brain Imaging Behav. 2017;11:736–43.

Szycik GR, Mohammadi B, Munte TF, Te Wildt BT. Lack of evidence that neural empathic responses are blunted in excessive users of violent video games: an fMRI study. Front Psychol. 2017;8:174.

Tear MJ, Nielsen M. Failure to demonstrate that playing violent video games diminishes prosocial behavior. PLoS ONE. 2013;8:e68382.

Tear MJ, Nielsen M. Video games and prosocial behavior: a study of the effects of non-violent, violent and ultra-violent gameplay. Comput Hum Behav. 2014;41:8–13.

Kühn S, Gleich T, Lorenz RC, Lindenberger U, Gallinat J. Playing super Mario induces structural brain plasticity: gray matter changes resulting from training with a commercial video game. Mol Psychiatry. 2014;19:265–71.

Buss AH, Perry M. The aggression questionnaire. J Pers Soc Psychol. 1992;63:452.

Anderson CA, Deuser WE, DeNeve KM. Hot temperatures, hostile affect, hostile cognition, and arousal: Tests of a general model of affective aggression. Pers Soc Psychol Bull. 1995;21:434–48.

Payne DL, Lonsway KA, Fitzgerald LF. Rape myth acceptance: exploration of its structure and its measurement using the illinois rape myth acceptance scale. J Res Pers. 1999;33:27–68.

McMahon S, Farmer GL. An updated measure for assessing subtle rape myths. Social Work Res. 2011; 35:71–81.

Detert JR, Trevino LK, Sweitzer VL. Moral disengagement in ethical decision making: a study of antecedents and outcomes. J Appl Psychol. 2008;93:374–91.

Bandura A, Barbaranelli C, Caprara G, Pastorelli C. Mechanisms of moral disengagement in the exercise of moral agency. J Pers Soc Psychol. 1996;71:364–74.

Rosenzweig S. The picture-association method and its application in a study of reactions to frustration. J Pers. 1945;14:23.

Hörmann H, Moog W, Der Rosenzweig P-F. Test für Erwachsene deutsche Bearbeitung. Göttingen: Hogrefe; 1957.

Anderson CA, Dill KE. Video games and aggressive thoughts, feelings, and behavior in the laboratory and in life. J Pers Soc Psychol. 2000;78:772–90.

Przybylski AK, Deci EL, Rigby CS, Ryan RM. Competence-impeding electronic games and players’ aggressive feelings, thoughts, and behaviors. J Pers Soc Psychol. 2014;106:441.

Bitsakou P, Antrop I, Wiersema JR, Sonuga-Barke EJ. Probing the limits of delay intolerance: preliminary young adult data from the Delay Frustration Task (DeFT). J Neurosci Methods. 2006;151:38–44.

Hoyle RH, Stephenson MT, Palmgreen P, Lorch EP, Donohew RL. Reliability and validity of a brief measure of sensation seeking. Pers Individ Dif. 2002;32:401–14.

Farmer R, Sundberg ND. Boredom proneness: the development and correlates of a new scale. J Pers Assess. 1986;50:4–17.

Lejuez CW, Read JP, Kahler CW, Richards JB, Ramsey SE, Stuart GL, et al. Evaluation of a behavioral measure of risk taking: the Balloon Analogue Risk Task (BART). J Exp Psychol Appl. 2002;8:75–84.

Richards JB, Zhang L, Mitchell SH, de Wit H. Delay or probability discounting in a model of impulsive behavior: effect of alcohol. J Exp Anal Behav. 1999;71:121–43.

Davis MH. A multidimensional approach to individual differences in empathy. JSAS Cat Sel Doc Psychol. 1980;10:85.

Google Scholar  

Mehrabian A. Manual for the Balanced Emotional Empathy Scale (BEES). (Available from Albert Mehrabian, 1130 Alta Mesa Road, Monterey, CA, USA 93940); 1996.

Baron-Cohen S, Wheelwright S, Hill J, Raste Y, Plumb I. The “Reading the Mind in the Eyes” Test revised version: A study with normal adults, and adults with Asperger syndrome or high-functioning autism. J Child Psychol Psychiatry. 2001;42:241–51.

Buhrmester D, Furman W, Reis H, Wittenberg MT. Five domains of interpersonal competence in peer relations. J Pers Soc Psychol. 1988;55:991–1008.

Richardson DR, Green LR, Lago T. The relationship between perspective-taking and non-aggressive responding in the face of an attack. J Pers. 1998;66:235–56.

Maras D, Flament MF, Murray M, Buchholz A, Henderson KA, Obeid N, et al. Screen time is associated with depression and anxiety in Canadian youth. Prev Med. 2015;73:133–8.

Hautzinger M, Bailer M, Worall H, Keller F. Beck-Depressions-Inventar (BDI). Beck-Depressions-Inventar (BDI): Testhandbuch der deutschen Ausgabe. Bern: Huber; 1995.

Spielberger CD, Spielberger CD, Sydeman SJ, Sydeman SJ, Owen AE, Owen AE, et al. Measuring anxiety and anger with the State-Trait Anxiety Inventory (STAI) and the State-Trait Anger Expression Inventory (STAXI). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Publishers; 1999.

Lorenz RC, Gleich T, Buchert R, Schlagenhauf F, Kuhn S, Gallinat J. Interactions between glutamate, dopamine, and the neuronal signature of response inhibition in the human striatum. Hum Brain Mapp. 2015;36:4031–40.

Bush G, Shin LM. The multi-source interference task: an fMRI task that reliably activates the cingulo-frontal-parietal cognitive/attention network. Nat Protoc. 2006;1:308–13.

King JA, Colla M, Brass M, Heuser I, von Cramon D. Inefficient cognitive control in adult ADHD: evidence from trial-by-trial Stroop test and cued task switching performance. Behav Brain Funct. 2007;3:42.

Benjamini Y, Hochberg Y. Controlling the false discovery rate: a practical and powerful approach to multiple testing. J R Stat Soc. 1995;57:289–300.

Wagenmakers E-J. A practical solution to the pervasive problems of p values. Psychon Bull Rev. 2007;14:779–804.

Hay DF. The gradual emergence of sex differences in aggression: alternative hypotheses. Psychol Med. 2007;37:1527–37.

Jeffreys H. The Theory of Probability. Oxford: Clarendon Press; 1961.

Raftery AE, Newton MA, Satagopan YM, Krivitsky PN. Estimating the integrated likelihood via posterior simulation using the harmonic mean identity. In: Bernardo JM, Bayarri MJ, Berger JO, Dawid AP, Heckerman D, Smith AFM, et al., editors. Bayesian statistics. Oxford: University Press; 2007.

Faul F, Erdfelder E, Lang A-G, Buchner A. G*Power3: a flexible statistical power analysis program for the social, behavioral, and biomedical sciences. Behav Res Methods. 2007;39:175–91.

Barlett C, Branch O, Rodeheffer C, Harris R. How long do the short-term violent video game effects last? Aggress Behav. 2009;35:225–36.

Williams D, Skoric M. Internet fantasy violence: a test of aggression in an online game. Commun Monogr. 2005;72:217–33.

Teng SK, Chong GY, Siew AS, Skoric MM. Grand theft auto IV comes to Singapore: effects of repeated exposure to violent video games on aggression. Cyber Behav Soc Netw. 2011;14:597–602.

van Rooij AJ, Kuss DJ, Griffiths MD, Shorter GW, Schoenmakers TM, Van, de Mheen D. The (co-)occurrence of problematic video gaming, substance use, and psychosocial problems in adolescents. J Behav Addict. 2014;3:157–65.

Brunborg GS, Mentzoni RA, Froyland LR. Is video gaming, or video game addiction, associated with depression, academic achievement, heavy episodic drinking, or conduct problems? J Behav Addict. 2014;3:27–32.

Green CS, Sugarman MA, Medford K, Klobusicky E, Bavelier D. The effect of action video game experience on task switching. Comput Hum Behav. 2012;28:984–94.

Strobach T, Frensch PA, Schubert T. Video game practice optimizes executive control skills in dual-task and task switching situations. Acta Psychol. 2012;140:13–24.

Colzato LS, van Leeuwen PJ, van den Wildenberg WP, Hommel B. DOOM’d to switch: superior cognitive flexibility in players of first person shooter games. Front Psychol. 2010;1:8.

PubMed   PubMed Central   Google Scholar  

Hutchinson CV, Barrett DJK, Nitka A, Raynes K. Action video game training reduces the Simon effect. Psychon B Rev. 2016;23:587–92.

Powers KL, Brooks PJ, Aldrich NJ, Palladino MA, Alfieri L. Effects of video-game play on information processing: a meta-analytic investigation. Psychon Bull Rev. 2013;20:1055–79.

Colzato LS, van den Wildenberg WP, Zmigrod S, Hommel B. Action video gaming and cognitive control: playing first person shooter games is associated with improvement in working memory but not action inhibition. Psychol Res. 2013;77:234–9.

Steenbergen L, Sellaro R, Stock AK, Beste C, Colzato LS. Action video gaming and cognitive control: playing first person shooter games is associated with improved action cascading but not inhibition. PLoS ONE. 2015;10:e0144364.

Download references

Acknowledgements

SK has been funded by a Heisenberg grant from the German Science Foundation (DFG KU 3322/1-1, SFB 936/C7), the European Union (ERC-2016-StG-Self-Control-677804) and a Fellowship from the Jacobs Foundation (JRF 2016–2018).

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

Max Planck Institute for Human Development, Center for Lifespan Psychology, Lentzeallee 94, 14195, Berlin, Germany

Simone Kühn, Katharina Schmalen, Markus Weichenberger & Charlotte Witt

Clinic and Policlinic for Psychiatry and Psychotherapy, University Clinic Hamburg-Eppendorf, Martinistraße 52, 20246, Hamburg, Germany

Simone Kühn, Dimitrij Tycho Kugler & Jürgen Gallinat

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Simone Kühn .

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest.

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Electronic supplementary material

Supplementary material, rights and permissions.

Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article’s Creative Commons license, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article’s Creative Commons license and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this license, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ .

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article.

Kühn, S., Kugler, D., Schmalen, K. et al. Does playing violent video games cause aggression? A longitudinal intervention study. Mol Psychiatry 24 , 1220–1234 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41380-018-0031-7

Download citation

Received : 19 August 2017

Revised : 03 January 2018

Accepted : 15 January 2018

Published : 13 March 2018

Issue Date : August 2019

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1038/s41380-018-0031-7

Share this article

Anyone you share the following link with will be able to read this content:

Sorry, a shareable link is not currently available for this article.

Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative

This article is cited by

Far from the future: internet addiction association with delay discounting among adolescence.

• Huaiyuan Qi

International Journal of Mental Health and Addiction (2024)

The effect of competitive context in nonviolent video games on aggression: The mediating role of frustration and the moderating role of gender

• Jinqian Liao
• Yanling Liu

Current Psychology (2024)

Geeks versus climate change: understanding American video gamers’ engagement with global warming

• Jennifer P. Carman
• Marina Psaros
• Anthony Leiserowitz

Climatic Change (2024)

Exposure to hate speech deteriorates neurocognitive mechanisms of the ability to understand others’ pain

• Agnieszka Pluta
• Joanna Mazurek
• Michał Bilewicz

Scientific Reports (2023)

The effects of violent video games on reactive-proactive aggression and cyberbullying

• Yunus Emre Dönmez

Current Psychology (2023)

Quick links

• Explore articles by subject
• Guide to authors
• Editorial policies

• Member Resources
• Membership & Dues
• JAACAP Open
• 1. Codes of Ethics and Related Documents
• 2. Training and Education
• 3. Clinical Practice
• 4. Legal and Forensic Issues
• 5. State and Federal Resources
• 6. Research and Other Scholarly Activities
• 7. Related Ethics Links
• 8. Ask Ethics
• Facts for Families
• Resources for Clinicians
• ADHD Resource Center
• Anxiety Resource Center
• Autism Resource Center
• Bipolar Disorder Resource Center
• Bullying Resource Center
• Trauma and Child Abuse Resource Center
• Climate Change & Youth Mental Health Resource Center
• Conduct Disorder Resource Center
• Depression Resource Center
• Disaster and Trauma Resource Center
• Emotion Dysregulation
• Military Families Resource Center
• Moving Into Adulthood Resource Center
• Obsessive Compulsive Disorder Resource Center
• Oppositional Defiant Disorder Resource Center
• Physically Ill Child Resource Center
• Screen Media Resource Center
• Schools Resource Center
• Substance Use Resource Center
• Suicide Resource Center
• Anti-Racism Resource Library
• Asian American and Pacific Islander Resource Library
• Coronavirus Resource Library
• Disaster Liaison Network Resource Library
• Guns and Violence Resource Library
• Youth at the Border Resource Library
• Parents’ Medication Guide
• Getting Help
• Medical Students
• Residents & Fellows
• Early Career Psychiatrists
• Mentorship Matters
• AACAP PsyFI Mentorship Award
• Catchers in the Rye Awards
• Distinguished Member Awards
• Academic Paper Awards
• Resident and Early Career Psychiatrists Awards
• International Scholar Awards
• Online CME Opportunities
• Live CME Opportunities
• CME Accreditation
• How You Earn CME Credits
• 2024 Online Hansen Annual Update Course
• 2024 Annual Meeting Call For Papers
• Exhibit and Sponsorship Opportunities
• Upcoming Meetings
• Past Meeting Resources and Publications
• Continuing Certification
• Session Recordings
• Clinical Practice Guidelines
• Business of Practice
• Clinical Care and Quality Improvement
• Systems of Care and Collaborative Models
• Telepsychiatry
• Systems & Models
• Healthcare Tools
• Be An Advocate
• AACAP Advocacy Toolkit
• State Workforce Maps
• Advocacy & Collaboration Grants
• Past Legislative Conferences
• Advocacy Updates
• Major Action Lists
• Policy Statements
• AACAP & Presidential Statements

No. 91; June 2017

Playing video games has become a popular activity for people of all ages. Video gaming is a multibillion-dollar industry bringing in more money than movies and DVDs. On average, girls spend more than an hour per day playing video games and boys spend more than two hours. Teens often spend even more time than younger children. Video games have become very sophisticated and realistic. Some games connect to the internet, which can allow children and adolescents to play games and have discussions with unknown adults and peers.

While some games have educational content, many of the most popular games emphasize negative themes and promote:

• The killing of people or animals
• The use and abuse of drugs and alcohol
• Criminal behavior, disrespect for authority and the law
• Sexual exploitation and violence toward women
• Racial, sexual, and gender stereotypes
• Foul language and obscene gestures

Store-bought video games are evaluated by the Electronic Software Ratings Board (ESRB) and rated for their appropriateness for children and teens. The ratings are featured prominently on the game packaging.

Studies of children exposed to violent media have shown that they may become numb to violence, imitate the violence, and show more aggressive behavior. Younger children and those with emotional, behavioral or learning problems may be more influenced by violent images.

In moderation, playing age-appropriate games can be enjoyable and healthy. Some video games may promote learning, problem solving and help with the development of fine motor skills and coordination. However, there are concerns about the effect of video games on young people who play videogames excessively.

Children and adolescents can become overly involved with videogames. They may have difficulty controlling the amount of time they play. They may resist their parents’ attempts to limit their time playing video games. Spending excessive time playing these games can lead to:

• Less time socializing with friends and family
• Poor social skills
• Time away from family time, school work, and other hobbies
• Lower grades
• Less reading
• Less exercise and becoming overweight
• Decreased sleep and poor quality sleep
• Aggressive thoughts and behaviors

Tips for Parents Parents can help their children enjoy these video games appropriately and avoid problems by:

• Avoiding video games in preschool-aged children
• Checking the ESRB ratings to select appropriate games—both in content and level of development
• Playing videogames with their children to share the experience and discuss the game’s content
• Setting clear rules about game content and playing time, both in and outside the home
• Monitoring online interactions and warning children about potential dangers of Internet contacts while playing games online
• Allowing video game playing only in public areas of the home, not in the child’s bedroom
• Remembering that you are a role model for your children including which video games you play and how long you play them
• Enforcing total screen time limits
• Ensuring video games are only played after homework and chores are done
• Encouraging participation in other activities, particularly physical activities

If you continue to have concerns about your child’s gaming habits or if your child is having difficulty with mood or behavior, ask your child’s pediatrician, family physician or school counselor to help arrange a referral to a trained and qualified mental health professional.  

Our websites may use cookies to personalize and enhance your experience. By continuing without changing your cookie settings, you agree to this collection. For more information, please see our University Websites Privacy Notice .

Neag School of Education

Well-designed video games can enhance problem-solving skills and make learning more effective.

• May 29, 2013
• Community Engagement

The tragic December deaths of 20 first-graders and six school staff members in Sandy Hook, Connecticut, along with the Boston Marathon tragedy and other recent attacks, have brought the decades-old debate over the behavioral effects of video games back onto legislative floors throughout the nation. Citing the fact that gunman Adam Lanza, 20, played violent video games, members of the U.S. Congressional Gun Violence Prevention Task Force detailed their plans to address “our culture’s glorification of violence” through media, and commentary stemming from reports like Katie Couric’s May 2013 video game violence exposé has highlighted the need for greater clarification of how we should read and interpret video game research.

Clearly, it’s a complex and emotional issue further complicated by discussions that focus almost exclusively on the negative effects of gaming. The reality, however, is that there’s little research outlining whether or not violent video games beget actual violence: many existing studies, like one described in a recent edition of the UConn Today , focus on aggression without explicitly acknowledging the complex relationship between cognition, transfer, and real world behavior. This has led to two major problems, the combination of which throws a wrench in the socially and politically-charged rhetoric surrounding violence: 1) the dismissal of other, more influential factors common to violent criminals—biological predisposition to mental health issues, instability at home and/or work, lack of positive role models, having no one to confide in, access to weapons, and in-the-moment opportunity versus need; and 2) neglect for how learning in all types of games—violent or not—actually happens.

While the first problem may better fit sociologists and psychologists who have direct experience with individuals who commit violent crimes, the second is something that we as teachers, administrators, and researchers can tackle head on. There’s general consensus in the educational psychology community that the nature of environment-learner-content interactions is vital to our understanding of how people perceive and act. As a result, we can’t make broad assumptions about games as a vehicle for violent behavior without attending to how environment-learner-content interactions influence transfer—the way learning and action in one context affects learning and action in a related context.

It might help to think of transfer in terms of what we hope students will do with the information they learn in our classes. For example, you might teach geometric principles in your math class thinking that those techniques will help your students craft a birdhouse in shop. However, one of the most well-cited studies of the subject (Gick & Holyoak, 1980) showed that only one-fifth of college students were able to apply a particular problem solving strategy—using ‘divide-and-conquer’ to capture a castle—in another, almost identical context less than 24 hours after exposure to the first. Even with explicit direct instruction explaining how the same strategy could be used to solve both problems, fewer than 50% of students were able to make the connection. Though links between situations might seem self-evident to us as teachers, they usually aren’t as obvious to our students as we think they should be.

This gives us reason to believe that, regardless of subject, students—or in the case of video games, players—are rarely able to take something they’ve used in one context and independently apply it in a totally different one. Put another way, even if violent gaming raises general aggression, increased aggression doesn’t automatically translate to real world violent behavior . Gamers might use more curse words while playing Call of Duty , but they won’t learn to steal a car solely by playing Grand Theft Auto —there needs to be a mediating instructor who can provide well-guided bridging between the game and reality, especially for in-game activities that aren’t isomorphic with real world action (i.e., firing a gun).

This relationship between environment-learner-content interaction and transfer puts teachers in the unique position to capitalize on game engagement to promote reflection that positively shapes how students tackle real-world challenges. To some, this may seem like a shocking concept, but it’s definitely not a new one—roleplay as instruction, for example, was very popular among the ancient Greeks and, in many ways, served as the backbone for Plato’s renowned Allegory of the Cave . The same is true of Shakespeare’s works, 18th and 19th century opera, and many of the novels, movies, and other media that define our culture. More recently, NASA has applied game-like simulations to teach astronauts how to maneuver through space, medical schools have used them to teach robotic surgery, and the Federal Aviation Administration has employed them to test pilots.

To be clear, this is not a call for K12 educators to drop everything and immediately incorporate violent games like Doom or Mortal Kombat into their classrooms. Instead, it’s a call to consider how we can take advantage of game affordances (including those of violent games) to extend beyond predictable multiple-choice materials that leave students wishing they could pull out their smartphones. It’s a call for legislators to give greater consideration to the role of transfer before passing sweeping bans on violent video game play. It’s a call for all of us to use games as a vehicle to talk about racial, social, gender, and other inequities that are very much a part of the world we live in.

It’s a bold idea that can feel scary, but the potential benefits are beyond exciting. Research generated by people like Kurt Squire, Sasha Barab, and James Paul Gee suggests that interactive games can be used to teach children about history, increase vocabulary, challenge them to set and achieve goals, and enhance their ability to work in teams. They expose students to culturally diverse casts of characters in addition to providing instant feedback about goal-oriented progress. Most importantly, perhaps, they can be powerfully engaging, giving students a reason to pursue learning beyond the classroom.

To maintain a positive trajectory, teachers looking to make the most of the instructional affordances of video games should keep an eye out for games they feel comfortable playing alongside and discussing with their students, take advantage of opportunities to participate in university game-based learning research studies, and remain open to modifying their instructional approaches. Parents should connect with teachers for up-to-date research coming from organizations like Games+Learning+Society and have their children reflect on material they’ve been exposed to during play—for example, social and cultural stereotypes, gender roles, and ways of thinking presented in each game. Legislators should consult university researchers in both communications and educational psychology to get a wider perspective on how play and learning merge to generate behavior in the real world.

Our collective understanding of game-based learning is evolving at lightning speed, and we need to dispel false information that ignores how games actually affect player thinking and action. More work, involving teachers, administrators, researchers, designers, parents, and politicians, is needed. The next step is to enhance our collaboration by working to create multi-disciplinary games that incorporate not just academic content but educational practices that lead to broader critical thinking and problem solving. Though far from complete, our combined effort has the potential to move beyond the swamp of video game violence and excite kids about school before they say “game over.”

Stephen Slota is doctoral candidate in educational psychology at the University of Connecticut’s Neag School of Education as well as an unashamed gamer. An educational technology specialist and  former urban high school teacher, he has a bachelor’s in molecular and cellular biology and Master’s in curriculum and instruction. His research interests include the situated cognition underlying play, the effects of gaming on student achievement, and prosocial learning through massively multiplayer online role-playing games ( MMORPGs).

The Council for the Accreditation of Educator Preparation (CAEP) accredits the Neag School of Education at the University of Connecticut. Read more about CAEP Accreditation, including the programs covered and the accountability measures .

Some content on this website may require the use of a plug-in, such as  Adobe Acrobat Viewer .

• Support the Neag School

Neag School of Education 249 Glenbrook Road, Unit 3064 Charles B. Gentry Building Storrs, CT 06269-3064

860-486-3815 [email protected]

• Mental Health

Are There Mental Health Benefits of Video Games?

There are many misconceptions about video games and the impact they have on mental health. The truth is that video games have many benefits, including developing complex problem-solving skills and promoting social interaction through online gaming. Video games can be a great way to stimulate your mind and improve your mental health. 

Benefits of Video Games

Playing video games has numerous benefits for your mental health. Video games can help you relieve stress and get your mind going. Some benefits include: 

Mental stimulation. Video games often make you think. When you play video games, almost every part of your brain is working to help you achieve higher-level thinking. Depending on the complexity of the game, you may have to think, strategize, and analyze quickly. Playing video games works with deeper parts of your brain that improve development and critical thinking skills.

Feeling accomplished. In the game, you have goals and objectives to reach. Once you achieve them, they bring you a lot of satisfaction, which improves your overall well-being. This sense of achievement is heightened when you play games that give you trophies or badges for certain goals. Trying to get more achievements gives you something to work toward. 

Mental health recovery. Regardless of the type, playing games can help with trauma recovery. Video games can act as distractions from pain and psychological trauma. Video games can also help people who are dealing with mental disorders like anxiety, depression, attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) , and post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD).

Social interaction. Multiplayer and online games are good for virtual social interaction. In fast-paced game settings, you’ll need to learn who to trust and who to leave behind within the game. Multiplayer games encourage cooperation. It’s also a low-stakes environment for you to test out talking to and fostering relationships with new people. 

Emotional resilience. When you fail in a game or in other situations, it can be frustrating. Video games help people learn how to cope with failure and keep trying. This is an important tool for children to learn and use as they get older. 

Despite what people may think, playing video games boosts your mood and has lasting effects. Whether you’re using gaming to spend time with your friends or to release some stress, it's a great option. 

Playing for Your Well-Being

Playing video games has been linked to improved moods and mental health benefits. It might seem natural to think that violent video games like first-person shooters aren’t good for your mental health. However, all video games can be beneficial for different reasons.

Try strategic video games. Role-playing and other strategic games can help strengthen problem-solving skills. There’s little research that says violent video games are bad for your mental health. Almost any game that encourages decision-making and critical thinking is beneficial for your mental health. 

Set limits. Though video games themselves aren’t bad for your mental health, becoming addicted to them can be. Spending too much time gaming can lead to isolation. You may also not want to be around people in the real world. When you start to feel yourself using video games as an escape, you might need to slow down.

If you can’t stop playing video games on your own, you can contact a mental health professional .  

Play with friends. Make game time fun by playing with friends. There are online communities you can join for your favorite games. Moderate gaming time with friends can help with socialization, relaxation, and managing stress. 

Limits of Video Games as a Mood Booster

Video games stop being good for you when you play an excessive amount. More than 10 hours per week is considered “excessive.” In these cases, you may:

• Have anxious feelings
• Be unable to sleep
• Not want to be in social settings

Another troubling sign is using video games to escape real life. As noted above, this type of behavior can lead to video game addiction, which then leads to other negative behaviors. Too much gaming can become a problem, but in moderation, it can do great things for your mental health.

Top doctors in ,

Find more top doctors on, related links.

• Mental Health Home
• Mental Health News & Features
• Mental Health Reference
• Mental Health Quizzes
• Mental Health Slideshows
• Mental Health Blogs
• Mental Health Videos
• Find a Psychiatrist
• Anxiety & Panic Disorders
• Bipolar Disorder
• Crisis Assistance
• Eating Disorders
• Health & Balance
• Personality Disorders
• Schizophrenia
• Social Media and Mental Health
• Stress Management
• Substance Abuse & Addiction
• More Related Topics

Why Does Violence In Video Games Calm Us Down?

Gemma Cockrell

On 24th August 2021, Twitter user @cherryybabyx tweeted that “Running people over in GTA was therapeutic.” Many people seemed to agree, with the tweet going viral and earning 41.4k likes and 11k retweets within two days. But why is this the case? Why can violence in video games sometimes help to destress us and calm us down? Gemma delves into the science and sociology behind this. 

Running people over in GTA was therapeutic????? — ???? ? (@cherryyxbaby) August 24, 2021

There has always been a common worry that violent video games such as Call Of Duty and GTA breed similar violence within society. Many people believe that carrying out these violent acts on a computer screen will encourage video game users to replicate these actions in reality.

Let’s look at the science behind this. Much of the research found that there isn’t a clear link between violence within video games and real-world aggression. Instead, most gamers report that playing video games relieves stress, even when the games revolve around violence.

Video games may help people develop stress-management skills, which can apply to real-life situations. A study from the  Behavioural Science Institute  found that several gamers who became upset whilst playing Starcraft 2 went on to find useful coping strategies to handle their negative emotions. 

In a sense, playing the game  taught  them how to deal with stress, and how to calm down.

Psychological studies have also shown that action-based video games, including violent ones, can help sharpen our cognitive abilities, such as our reaction times. This allows gamers to think quickly, meaning that they are likely to be more skilled in problem-solving, which can help reduce stress.

So, it seems that gaming can teach people stress-management techniques which they can use in real-life situations. But can  playing  the game itself help them feel calmer at the moment?  Research  seems to suggest that this varies from person to person, depending entirely on their personality.

Some people might find that high-adrenaline, fast-paced games, which feature elements of violence, cause stress. However, other people prefer to play these games because they help keep their brains active and engaged. Their brains are so engaged that other thoughts can’t arise.

This way, they forget about the stresses of their real lives and feel relaxed whilst playing the game.

Porter and Goolkasian  found that players of violent video games experienced cardiovascular stress whilst players of puzzle games did not. Additionally, they discovered that participants played video games for stress relief purposes. 

Furthermore, a study published in the  Journal of Adolescent Health , which sampled many American children, found that video games can help children manage their negative feelings, such as anger and stress. They were likely to relieve their anger whilst playing these games, ultimately calming them down. 

However, what if it seems that video games are helping people to calm down, but in reality, they are just a method that people use to suppress their emotions? Maybe, they deal with their stress by becoming engaged in a video game, but this would mean that their negative emotions stay suppressed. This can lead to alexithymia (a condition where you can’t determine your emotional state) which, perhaps coincidentally, many gamers suffer from.

It is undeniable that video games are a key strategy people use to cope with stress. However, whether the strategy is a healthy coping mechanism seems uncertain. Gaming can be used healthily, as a way to relax after a long day of work but it can also be used to escape from reality and ignore negative emotions.

Whether video games are a healthy coping mechanism appears to depend on the person. Ultimately, as long as you enjoy the time that you spend playing video games, then you are probably doing things right.

Linking back to the original tweet mentioned, @cherryybabyx is right: running people over in GTA can absolutely be therapeutic, and there is evidence to prove so.

Featured image courtesy of Nadine Shaabana  via  Unsplash.   Image license found  here . No changes were made to this image.

In-article image 1 courtesy of @cherryybabyx via  twitter.com  . No changes were made to these images.

In-article image 2 courtesy of Keenan Constance  via  Unsplash.  Image license found  here . No changes were made to this image.

In-article images 3 courtesy of Matúš Kova?ovský via Unsplash . Image license found  here . No changes were made to this image.

In-article image 4 courtesy of Nik via Unsplash.  Image license found  here . No changes were made to this image.

For more content including Uni news, reviews, entertainment, lifestyle, features and so much more, follow us on  Twitter  and  Instagram , and like our  Facebook page  for more articles and information on how to get involved.

To keep up to date with all the latest Impact News, you can also follow us on the Impact News’  Facebook  and  Twitter  page.

New Releases Roundup – Mrley, iDontEvenTrap, Cathy Jain and Ragsy

The premier league’s opening weekend fails to disappoint, leave a reply cancel reply.

Save my name, email, and website in this browser for the next time I comment.

Interview: girli

Interview: Musicality presents: ‘The Addams Family: The Musical!’

Interview: Trip Westerns

Interview: The Mysterines

• U.S. Department of Health & Human Services

• Virtual Tour
• Staff Directory
• En Español

You are here

News releases.

News Release

Monday, October 24, 2022

Video gaming may be associated with better cognitive performance in children

Additional research necessary to parse potential benefits and harms of video games on the developing brain.

On Monday, April 10, 2023, a Notice of Retraction and Replacement published for the article featured below . The key findings remain the same. The press release has been updated, in line with the retracted and replacement article, to clarify that attention problems, depression symptoms, and attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) scores were significantly higher among children who played three hours per day or more compared to children who had never played video games.

A study of nearly 2,000 children found that those who reported playing video games for three hours per day or more performed better on cognitive skills tests involving impulse control and working memory compared to children who had never played video games. Published today in JAMA Network Open , this study analyzed data from the ongoing  Adolescent Brain Cognitive Development (ABCD) Study , which is supported by the National Institute on Drug Abuse (NIDA) and other entities of the National Institutes of Health.

“This study adds to our growing understanding of the associations between playing video games and brain development,” said NIDA Director Nora Volkow, M.D. “Numerous studies have linked video gaming to behavior and mental health problems. This study suggests that there may also be cognitive benefits associated with this popular pastime, which are worthy of further investigation.”

Although a number of studies have investigated the relationship between video gaming and cognitive behavior, the neurobiological mechanisms underlying the associations are not well understood. Only a handful of neuroimaging studies have addressed this topic, and the sample sizes for those studies have been small, with fewer than 80 participants.

To address this research gap, scientists at the University of Vermont, Burlington, analyzed data obtained when children entered the ABCD Study at ages 9 and 10 years old. The research team examined survey, cognitive, and brain imaging data from nearly 2,000 participants from within the bigger study cohort. They separated these children into two groups, those who reported playing no video games at all and those who reported playing video games for three hours per day or more. This threshold was selected as it exceeds the American Academy of Pediatrics screen time guidelines , which recommend that videogaming time be limited to one to two hours per day for older children. For each group, the investigators evaluated the children’s performance on two tasks that reflected their ability to control impulsive behavior and to memorize information, as well as the children’s brain activity while performing the tasks.

The researchers found that the children who reported playing video games for three or more hours per day were faster and more accurate on both cognitive tasks than those who never played. They also observed that the differences in cognitive function observed between the two groups was accompanied by differences in brain activity. Functional MRI brain imaging analyses found that children who played video games for three or more hours per day showed higher brain activity in regions of the brain associated with attention and memory than did those who never played. At the same time, those children who played at least three hours of videogames per day showed more brain activity in frontal brain regions that are associated with more cognitively demanding tasks and less brain activity in brain regions related to vision.  

The researchers think these patterns may stem from practicing tasks related to impulse control and memory while playing videogames, which can be cognitively demanding, and that these changes may lead to improved performance on related tasks. Furthermore, the comparatively low activity in visual areas among children who reported playing video games may reflect that this area of the brain may become more efficient at visual processing as a result of repeated practice through video games.

While prior studies have reported associations between video gaming and increases in violence and aggressive behavior, this study did not find that to be the case. Though children who reported playing video games for three or more hours per day scored higher on measures of attention problems, depression symptoms, and attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) compared to children who played no video games, the researchers found that these mental health and behavioral scores did not reach clinical significance in either group, meaning, they did not meet the thresholds for risk of problem behaviors or clinical symptoms. The authors note that these will be important measures to continue to track and understand as the children mature.

Further, the researchers stress that this cross-sectional study does not allow for cause-and-effect analyses, and that it could be that children who are good at these types of cognitive tasks may choose to play video games. The authors also emphasize that their findings do not mean that children should spend unlimited time on their computers, mobile phones, or TVs, and that the outcomes likely depend largely on the specific activities children engage in. For instance, they hypothesize that the specific genre of video games, such as action-adventure, puzzle solving, sports, or shooting games, may have different effects for neurocognitive development, and this level of specificity on the type of video game played was not assessed by the study.

“While we cannot say whether playing video games regularly caused superior neurocognitive performance, it is an encouraging finding, and one that we must continue to investigate in these children as they transition into adolescence and young adulthood,” said Bader Chaarani, Ph.D., assistant professor of psychiatry at the University of Vermont and the lead author on the study. “Many parents today are concerned about the effects of video games on their children’s health and development, and as these games continue to proliferate among young people, it is crucial that we better understand both the positive and negative impact that such games may have.”

Through the ABCD Study, researchers will be able to conduct similar analyses for the same children over time into early adulthood, to see if changes in video gaming behavior are linked to changes in cognitive skills, brain activity, behavior, and mental health. The longitudinal study design and comprehensive data set will also enable them to better account for various other factors in the children’s families and environment that may influence their cognitive and behavioral development, such as exercise, sleep quality, and other influences.

The ABCD Study, the largest of its kind in the United States, is tracking nearly 12,000 youth as they grow into young adults. Investigators regularly measure participants’ brain structure and activity using magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) and collect psychological, environmental, and cognitive information, as well as biological samples. The goal of the study is to understand the factors that influence brain, cognitive, and social-emotional development, to inform the development of interventions to enhance a young person’s life trajectory.

The Adolescent Brain Cognitive Development Study and ABCD Study are registered service marks and trademarks, respectively, of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services

About the National Institute on Drug Abuse (NIDA): NIDA is a component of the National Institutes of Health, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. NIDA supports most of the world’s research on the health aspects of drug use and addiction. The Institute carries out a large variety of programs to inform policy, improve practice, and advance addiction science. For more information about NIDA and its programs, visit www.nida.nih.gov .

About the National Institutes of Health (NIH): NIH, the nation's medical research agency, includes 27 Institutes and Centers and is a component of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. NIH is the primary federal agency conducting and supporting basic, clinical, and translational medical research, and is investigating the causes, treatments, and cures for both common and rare diseases. For more information about NIH and its programs, visit www.nih.gov .

NIH…Turning Discovery Into Health ®

  B Chaarani, et al.  Association of video gaming with cognitive performance among children .  JAMA Open Network.  DOI: 10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2022.35721 (2022).

Connect with Us

• More Social Media from NIH

• Where We Work
• Publications
• Toolkits & Guides
• Data Collection Tools
• Fact Sheets
• All Resources

Do Video Games Influence Violent Behavior?

By:  Roanna Cooper, MA and Marc Zimmerman, PhD, MI-YVPC Director

An op-ed article appeared recently in the The New York Times  discussing the Supreme Court’s decision to strike down California’s law barring the sale or rental of violent video games to people under 18.  The author, Dr. Cheryl Olson,   describes how the proposed law was based on the erroneous assumption that such games influence violent behavior in real life.

Dr. Olson suggests that the deliberately outrageous nature of violent games, though disturbing, makes them easily discernible from real life and suggests that the interactivity could potentially make such games less harmful.

She raises the question of how these two behaviors can be linked if youth violence has declined over the last several years while violent video game playing has increased significantly during the same period.

This analysis ignores the fact that such variation may be explained by factors other than the link between the two. A spurious variable–a third variable that explains the relationship between two other variables—may explain the negative correlation of video game playing and violent behavior. As one example, socioeconomic status may explain both a decline in violent behavior and an increase in video game playing. More affluent youth have the means and time to buy and play video games, which keeps them safely inside while avoiding potentially violent interactions on the street.  Dr. Olsen also cites several studies that have failed to show a connection between violent video game playing and violent behavior among youth.

This conclusion, however, may not be as clear cut as it appears.

Youth violence remains a significant public health issue

The decline of youth violence notwithstanding, it remains a significant public health issue that requires attention.Youth homicide remains the number one cause of death for African-American youth between 14 and 24 years old, and the number two cause for all children in this age group. Furthermore, the proportion of youth admitting to having committed various violent acts within the previous 12 months has remained steady or even increased somewhat in recent years ( http://pediatrics.aappublications.org/content/108/5/1222.full.pdf+html ).  Although the Columbine tragedy and others like it make the headlines, youth are killed everyday by the hands of another.  A more critical analysis of the link between video game playing and violence is necessary for fully understanding a complex problem like youth violent behavior that has many causes and correlates.

Studies support a link between violent video games and aggressive behavior

Researchers have reported experimental evidence linking violent video games to more aggressive behavior, particularly as it relates to children who are at more sensitive stages in their socialization.  These effects have been found to be particularly profound in the case of child-initiated virtual violence.

• In one study, 161 9- to 12-year olds and 354 college students were randomly assigned to play either a violent or nonviolent video game.  The participants subsequently played another computer game in which they set punishment levels to be delivered to another person participating in the study (they were not actually administered).  Information was also gathered on each participant’s recent history of violent behavior; habitual video game, television, and move habits, and several other control variables.  The authors reported three main findings: 1) participants who played one of violent video games would choose to punish their opponents with significantly more high-noise blasts than those who played the nonviolent games; 2) habitual exposure to violent media was associated with higher levels of recent violent behavior; and 3) interactive forms of media violence were more strongly related to violent behavior than exposure to non-interactive media violence.
• The second study was a cross-sectional correlational study of media habits, aggression-related individual difference variables, and aggressive behaviors of an adolescent population.  High school students (N=189) completed surveys about their violent TV, movie, and video game exposure, attitudes towards violence, and perceived norms about violent behavior and personality traits.  After statistically controlling for sex, total screen time and aggressive beliefs and attitudes, the authors found that playing violent video games predicted heightened physically aggressive behavior and violent behavior in the real world in a long-term context.
• In a third study, Anderson et al. conducted a longitudinal study of elementary school students to examine if violent video game exposure resulted in increases in aggressive behavior over time.  Surveys were given to 430 third, fourth, and fifth graders, their peers, and their teachers at two times during a school year.  The survey assessed both media habits and their attitudes about violence.  Results indicated that children who played more violent video games early in a school year changed to see the world in a more aggressive way and also changed to become more verbally and physically aggressive later in the school year.  Changes in attitude were noticed by both peers and teachers.
• Bushman and Huesmann, in a 2006 Pediatrics and Adolescent Medicine article , examined effect size estimates using meta-analysis to look at the short- and long-term effects of violent media on aggression in children and adults.  They reported a positive relationship between exposure to media violence and subsequent aggressive behavior, aggressive ideas, arousal, and anger across the studies they examined.  Consistent with the theory that long-term effects require the learning of beliefs and that young minds can easier encode new scripts via observational learning, they found that the long-term effects were greater for children.
• In a more recent review, Anderson et al. (2010) also analyzed 136 studies representing 130,296 participants from several countries.  These included experimental laboratory work, cross-sectional surveys and longitudinal studies.  Overall, they found consistent associations between playing violent video games and many measures of aggression, including self, teacher and parent reports of aggressive behavior.  Although the correlations were not high (r=0.17-0.20), they are typical for psychological studies in general and comparable with other risk factors for youth violence suggested in the 2001 Surgeon General’s Report on youth violence .

Violent video games may increase precursors to violent behavior, such as bullying

Although playing violent video games may not necessarily determine violent or aggressive behavior, it may increase precursors to violent behavior.  In fact, Dr. Olson points out that violent video games may be related to bullying, which researchers have found to be a risk factor for more serious violent behavior. Therefore, video game playing may have an indirect effect on violent behavior by increasing risk factors for it.  Doug Gentile notes that the only way for violent video games to affect serious criminal violence statistics is if they were the primary predictor of crime, which they may not be.  Rather, they represent one risk factor among many for aggression ( http://www.apa.org/monitor/2010/12/virtual-violence.aspx ).

Should video games be regulated?

L. Rowell Huesmann (2010) points out that violent video game playing may be similar to other public health threats such as exposure to cigarette smoke and led based paint .  Despite not being guaranteed, the probability of lung cancer from smoking or intelligence deficits from lead exposure is increased.  Nevertheless, we have laws controlling cigarette sales to minors and the use of lead-based paint (and other lead-based products such as gasoline) because it is a risk factor for negative health outcomes.  Huesmann argues the same analysis could be applied to video game exposure.  Although exposure to violent video games is not the sole factor contributing to aggression and violence among children and adolescents, it is a contributing risk factor that is modifiable.

Violent behavior is determined by many factors

Finally, most researchers would agree that violent behavior is determined by many factors which may combine in different ways for different youth. These factors involve neighborhoods, families, peers, and individual traits and behaviors. Researchers, for example, have found that living in a violent neighborhood and experiencing violence as a victim or witness is associated with an increased risk for violent behavior among youth. Yet, this factor alone may not cause one to be violent and most people living in such a neighborhood do not become violent perpetrators. Similarly, researchers have found consistently that exposure to family violence (e.g., spousal and child abuse, fighting and conflict) increases the risk for youth violent behavior, but does not necessarily result in violent children. Likewise, researchers have found that first person killing video game playing is associated with increased risk for violent behavior, but not all the time. Yet, constant exposure to violence from multiple sources, including first person violent video games, in the absence of positive factors that help to buffer these negative exposures is likely to increase the probability that youth will engage in violent behavior.

Despite disagreements on the exact nature of the relationship between violent video game playing and violent or aggressive behavior, significant evidence exists linking video game playing with violent behavior and its correlates.  Although we are somewhat agnostic about the role of social controls like laws banning the sale of violent video games to minors, an argument against such social controls based on the conclusion  that the video games have no effect seems to oversimplify the issue. A more in-depth and critical analysis of the issue from multiple perspectives may both help more completely understand the causes and correlates of youth violence, and provide us with some direction for creative solutions to this persistent social problem.

Share this:

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Study shows video games can improve mental wellbeing – but you can have too much of a good thing

Associate Professor of Psychology, Bond University

Associate professor of psychology, Bond University

Professor in Psychology, Bond University

Disclosure statement

The authors do not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organization that would benefit from this article, and have disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.

Bond University provides funding as a member of The Conversation AU.

View all partners

A study of almost 100,000 people in Japan aged 10 to 69 found playing video games – or even owning a console – can be good for mental health. But playing too much each day can harm wellbeing.

Video games and other forms of online media consumption are an everyday part of life .

Surveys have shown playing video games can have positive effects on stress levels and creativity . But concern remains about the potential negative effects on, for example, general wellbeing, aggressive behaviour and social development, especially for young people.

The World Health Organization lists gaming disorder as a mental health condition, and a severe social withdrawal condition called hikikomori has been described in Japan.

The new survey showed links between gaming and wellbeing and researchers found a way to show cause and effect – that even owning a gaming console improved wellbeing.

What the study found

The research was conducted between 2020 and 2022 – during the COVID pandemic. The researchers used measures of psychological distress and life satisfaction and asked 97,602 people in Japan about their gaming use.

The survey coincided with supply chain shortages. These led retailers to use a lottery system for the purchase of two consoles: Nintendo Switch and PlayStation 5. Of the overall survey group, 8,192 participated in the lottery.

Researchers compared the 2,323 lottery winners against those who did not win the opportunity to purchase one of the new consoles (over five rounds of surveys). They found those who won the lottery had improved distress scores and better life satisfaction.

The results were not all positive. Over time, the scores indicated drops in wellbeing for those who played more than three hours a day. Scores continued to drop for each additional time increment measured.

The study had some limitations.

Firstly, the survey was conducted when the COVID pandemic presented a particularly challenging time for mental health. It also brought changes in social, occupational and lifestyle behaviours.

The study focused mainly on general gaming habits without distinguishing between different types of games, which could have varying impacts on mental health.

Further, participants chose whether to enter the lottery, so it was not a random sample. And the study could not specifically attribute findings to the effects of playing video games versus the effects of winning the lottery.

Finally, we know self-reported studies are not always reliable .

Gaming pros and cons

We know from other surveys video games can be useful stress relievers and aid social connection (albeit online). We also know some games can improve particular cognitive skills such as visuo-spatial navigation and problem solving .

Games and technologies can also specifically target mental health issues , such as social anxiety or phobias, address ADHD symptoms and enhance motivation and performance.

Yet, concerns remain about possible long-term consequences, particularly in terms of reductions in “real-life” socialisation , participation in physical activity, school performance and other health consequences , including sleep and eating behaviours.

3 tips for positive gaming

While video games can offer some benefits, it’s important to maintain a balanced approach to gaming. Here are a few tips to help manage gaming habits and promote overall wellbeing:

1. Set time limits

Encourage moderate gaming by setting clear time limits to ensure it doesn’t interfere with sleep, physical activity or other important daily activities. The Australian institute of Family Studies recommends creating a media plan that includes limits on screen time and balances gaming with other activities.

2. Choose games wisely

Opt for games that are age-appropriate and consider their content. Some games can promote problem-solving skills and creativity , but it’s important to be mindful of those that might encourage aggression or excessive competition.

3. Monitor eating and sleeping habits

Pay attention to eating patterns and ensure meals are not skipped in favour of gaming. Encourage regular sleep patterns and avoid gaming close to bedtime to prevent disruptions in sleep .

While the new study provides promising insights into the potential positive effects of video games on mental wellbeing, these findings should be approached with caution due to the limits of the survey.

While the potential benefits are encouraging, it is essential to adopt a balanced approach to gaming and pursue further research to fully understand its long-term impact on mental health.

• Video games
• Consumer health
• Health research
• New research
• Video gaming

Want to write?

Write an article and join a growing community of more than 188,800 academics and researchers from 5,030 institutions.

Register now

Do Violent Video Games Contribute to Youth Violence?

Around 73% of American kids age 2-17 played  video games  in 2019, a 6% increase over 2018. Video games accounted for 17% of kids’ entertainment time and 11% of their entertainment spending. The global video game industry was worth contributing $159.3 billion in 2020, a 9.3% increase of 9.3% from 2019.

Violent video games have been blamed for school shootings , increases in bullying , and violence towards women. Critics argue that these games desensitize players to violence, reward players for simulating violence, and teach children that violence is an acceptable way to resolve conflicts.

Video game advocates contend that a majority of the research on the topic is deeply flawed and that no causal relationship has been found between video games and social violence. They argue that violent video games may provide a safe outlet for aggressive and angry feelings and may reduce crime. Read more background…

Pro & Con Arguments

Pro 1 Playing violent video games causes more aggression, bullying, and fighting. 60% of middle school boys and 40% of middle school girls who played at least one Mature-rated (M-rated) game hit or beat up someone, compared with 39% of boys and 14% of girls who did not play M-rated games. [ 2 ] A peer-reviewed study in the Journal of the American Medical Association found that habitual violent video game playing had a causal link with increased, long-term, aggressive behavior. [ 63 ] Several peer-reviewed studies have shown that children who play M-rated games are more likely to bully and cyberbully their peers, get into physical fights, be hostile, argue with teachers, and show aggression towards their peers throughout the school year. [ 2 ] [ 31 ] [ 60 ] [ 61 ] [ 67 ] [ 73 ] [ 76 ] [ 80 ] Read More

Pro 2 Simulating violence such as shooting guns and hand-to-hand combat in video games can cause real-life violent behavior. Video games often require players to simulate violent actions, such as stabbing, shooting, or dismembering someone with an ax, sword, chainsaw, or other weapons. [ 23 ] Game controllers are so sophisticated and the games are so realistic that simulating the violent acts enhances the learning of those violent behaviors. [ 23 ] A peer-reviewed study found “compelling evidence that the use of realistic controllers can have a significant effect on the level of cognitive aggression.” [ 118 ] Two teenagers in Tennessee who shot at passing cars and killed one driver told police they got the idea from playing Grand Theft Auto III . [ 48 ] Bruce Bartholow, professor of psychology at the University of Missouri, spoke about the effects of simulating violence: “More than any other media, these [violent] video games encourage active participation in violence. From a psychological perspective, video games are excellent teaching tools because they reward players for engaging in certain types of behavior. Unfortunately, in many popular video games, the behavior is violence.” [ 53 ] Read More

Pro 3 Many perpetrators of mass shootings played violent video games. Kevin McCarthy, former U.S. Representative (R-CA), states: “But the idea of these video games that dehumanize individuals to have a game of shooting individuals and others – I’ve always felt that is a problem for future generations and others. We’ve watched from studies shown before of what it does to individuals. When you look at these photos of how it [mass shootings] took place, you can see the actions within video games and others.” [ 146 ] Many mass shootings have been carried out by avid video game players: Eric Harris and Dylan Klebold in the Columbine High School shooting (1999); James Holmes in the Aurora, Colorado movie theater shooting (2012); Jared Lee Loughner in the Arizona shooting that injured Rep. Gabby Giffords and killed six others (2011); and Anders Breivik, who killed 77 people in Norway (2011) and admitted to using the game Modern Warfare 2 for training. [ 43 ] [ 53 ] An FBI school shooter threat assessment stated that a student who makes threats of violence should be considered more credible if he or she also spends “inordinate amounts of time playing video games with violent themes.” [ 25 ] Dan Patrick, Republican Lieutenant Governor of Texas, stated: “We’ve always had guns, always had evil, but I see a video game industry that teaches young people to kill.” [ 145 ] Read More

Pro 4 Violent video games desensitize players to real-life violence. Desensitization to violence was defined in a Journal of Experimental Social Psychology peer-reviewed study as “a reduction in emotion-related physiological reactivity to real violence.” [ 51 ] [ 111 ] [ 112 ] The study found that just 20 minutes of playing a violent video game “can cause people to become less physiologically aroused by real violence.” People desensitized to violence are more likely to commit a violent act. [ 51 ] [ 111 ] [ 112 ] By age 18, American children will have seen 16,000 murders and 200,000 acts of violence depicted in violent video games, movies, and television. [ 110 ] A peer-reviewed study found a causal link between violent video game exposure and an increase in aggression as a result of a reduction in the brain’s response to depictions of real-life violence. [ 52 ] Studies have found reduced emotional and physiological responses to violence in both the long and short term. [ 55 ] [ 58 ] In a peer-reviewed study, violent video game exposure was linked to reduced P300 amplitudes in the brain, which is associated with desensitization to violence and increases in aggressive behavior. [ 24 ] Read More

Pro 5 By inhabiting violent characters in video games, children are more likely to imitate the behaviors of those characters and have difficulty distinguishing reality from fantasy. Violent video games require active participation and identification with violent characters, which reinforces violent behavior. Young children are more likely to confuse fantasy violence with real world violence, and without a framework for ethical decision making, they may mimic the actions they see in violent video games. [ 59 ] [ 4 ] Child Development and Early Childhood Education expert Jane Katch stated in an interview with Education Week , “I found that young children often have difficulty separating fantasy from reality when they are playing and can temporarily believe they are the character they are pretending to be.” [ 124 ] U.S. Supreme Court Justice Stephen Breyer wrote in his dissent in Brown v. ESA that “the closer a child’s behavior comes, not to watching, but to acting out horrific violence, the greater the potential psychological harm.” [ 124 ] Read More

Pro 6 Exposure to violent video games is linked to lower empathy and decreased kindness. Empathy, the ability to understand and enter into another’s feelings is believed to inhibit aggressive behavior. In a study of 150 fourth and fifth graders by Jeanne Funk, professor of psychology at the University of Toledo, violent video games were the only type of media associated with lower empathy. [ 32] A study published in the American Psychological Association’s Psychological Bulletin found that exposure to violent video games led to a lack of empathy and prosocial behavior (positive actions that benefit others). [ 65] [ 66] Eight independent tests measuring the impact of violent video games on prosocial behavior found a significant negative effect, leading to the conclusion that “exposure to violent video games is negatively correlated with helping in the real world.” [ 61] Several studies have found that children with high exposure to violent media display lower moral reasoning skills than their peers without that exposure. [ 32] [ 69] A meta-analysis of 130 international studies with over 130,000 participants concluded that violent video games “increase aggressive thoughts, angry feelings, and aggressive behaviors, and decrease empathic feelings and prosocial behaviors.” [ 123] Read More

Pro 7 Video games that portray violence against women lead to more harmful attitudes and sexually violent actions towards women. A peer-reviewed study published in the Journal of Interpersonal Violence found that video games that sexually objectify women and feature violence against women led to a statistically significant increase in rape-supportive attitudes, which are attitudes that are hostile towards rape victims. [ 68 ] Another study found that 21% of games sampled involved violence against women, while 28% portrayed them as sex objects. [ 23 ] Exposure to sexual violence in video games is linked to increases in violence towards women and false attitudes about rape, such as that women incite men to rape or that women secretly desire rape. [ 30 ] Carole Lieberman, a media psychiatrist, stated, “The more video games a person plays that have violent sexual content, the more likely one is to become desensitized to violent sexual acts and commit them.” [ 64 ] Target Australia stopped selling Grand Theft Auto V in response to customer complaints about the game’s depiction of women, which includes the option to kill a prostitute to get your money back. [ 70 ] Read More

Pro 8 Violent video games reinforce fighting as a means of dealing with conflict by rewarding the use of violent action with increased life force, more weapons, moving on to higher levels, and more. Studies suggest that when violence is rewarded in video games, players exhibit increased aggressive behavior compared to players of video games where violence is punished. [ 23 ] [ 59 ] The reward structure is one distinguishing factor between violent video games and other violent media such as movies and television shows, which do not reward viewers nor allow them to actively participate in violence. [ 23 ] [ 59 ] An analysis of 81 video games rated for teens ages 13 and up found that 73 games (90%) rewarded injuring other characters, and 56 games (69%) rewarded killing. [ 71 ] [ 72 ] People who played a video game that rewarded violence showed higher levels of aggressive behavior and aggressive cognition as compared with people who played a version of the same game that was competitive but either did not contain violence or punished violence. [ 71 ] [ 72 ] Read More

Pro 9 The US military uses violent video games to train soldiers to kill. The U.S. Marine Corps licensed Doom II in 1996 to create Marine Doom in order to train soldiers. In 2002, the U.S. Army released first-person shooter game America’s Army to recruit soldiers and prepare recruits for the battlefield. [ 6 ] While the military may benefit from training soldiers to kill using video games, kids who are exposed to these games lack the discipline and structure of the armed forces and may become more susceptible to being violent. [ 79 ] Dave Grossman, retired lieutenant colonel in the United States Army and former West Point psychology professor, stated: “[T]hrough interactive point-and-shoot video games, modern nations are indiscriminately introducing to their children the same weapons technology that major armies and law enforcement agencies around the world use to ‘turn off’ the midbrain ‘safety catch’” that prevents most people from killing. [ 77 ] Read More

Con 1 Studies have shown violent video games may cause aggression, not violence. Further, any competitive video game or activity may cause aggression. Lauren Farrar, producer for KQED Learning’s YouTube series Above the Noise , stated: “Often times after tragic mass shooting, we hear politicians turn the blame to violent video games, but the reality is that the research doesn’t really support that claim… In general, violence usually refers to physical harm or physical acts that hurt someone– like hitting, kicking, punching, and pushing. Aggression is a more broad term that refers to angry or hostile thoughts, feelings or behaviors. So everything that is violent is aggressive, but not everything that is aggressive is violent. For example, getting frustrated, yelling, talking back, arguing those are all aggressive behaviors, but they aren’t violent. The research on the effects of violent video games and behavior often looks at these milder forms of aggressive behavior.” [ 140 ] A peer-reviewed study in Psychology of Violence determined that the competitive nature of a video game was related to aggressive behavior, regardless of whether the game contained violent content. The researchers concluded: “Because past studies have failed to equate the violent and nonviolent video games on competitiveness, difficulty, and pace of action simultaneously, researchers may have attributed too much of the variability in aggression to the violent content.” [ 125 ] A follow-up study tracked high school students for four years and came to the same conclusion: the competitive nature of the games led to the increased hostile behavior. [ 126 ] Read More

Con 2 Violent video games are a convenient scapegoat for those who would rather not deal with the actual causes of violence in the US. Patrick Markey, psychology professor at Villanova University, stated: “The general story is people who play video games right after might be a little hopped up and jerky but it doesn’t fundamentally alter who they are. It is like going to see a sad movie. It might make you cry but it doesn’t make you clinically depressed… Politicians on both sides go after video games it is this weird unifying force. It makes them look like they are doing something… They [violent video games] look scary. But research just doesn’t support that there’s a link [to violent behavior].” [ 138 ] Markey also explained, “Because video games are disproportionately blamed as a culprit for mass shootings committed by White perpetrators, video game ‘blaming’ can be viewed as flagging a racial issue. This is because there is a stereotypical association between racial minorities and violent crime.” [ 141 ] Andrew Przybylski, associate professor, and director of research at the Oxford Internet Institute at Oxford University, stated: “Games have only become more realistic. The players of games and violent games have only become more diverse. And they’re played all around the world now. But the only place where you see this kind of narrative still hold any water, that games and violence are related to each other, is in the United States. [And, by blaming video games for violence,] we reduce the value of the political discourse on the topic, because we’re looking for easy answers instead of facing hard truths.” [ 139 ] Hillary Clinton, Former Secretary of State and First Lady, tweeted, “People suffer from mental illness in every other country on earth; people play video games in virtually every other country on earth. The difference is the guns.” [ 142 ] Read More

Con 3 Simple statistics do not support the claim that violent video games cause mass shootings or other violence. Katherine Newman, dean of arts and sciences at Johns Hopkins University, explained: “Millions of young people play video games full of fistfights, blazing guns, and body slams… Yet only a minuscule fraction of the consumers become violent.” [ 84 ] [ 86 ] [ 87 ] [ 91 ] [ 92 ] A report by the U.S. Secret Service and U.S. Department of Education examined 37 incidents of targeted school violence between 1974 and 2000. Of the 41 attackers studied, 27% had an interest in violent movies, 24% in violent books, and 37% exhibited interest in their own violent writings, while only 12% showed interest in violent video games. The report did not find a relationship between playing violent video games and school shootings. [ 35 ] Patrick M. Markey, director of the Interpersonal Research Laboratory at Villanova University, stated, “90% of young males play video games. Finding that a young man who committed a violent crime also played a popular video game, such as Call of Duty, Halo, or Grand Theft Auto, is as pointless as pointing out that the criminal also wore socks.” [ 84 ] Further, gun violence is less prevalent in countries with high video game use. A study of the countries representing the 10 largest video game markets internationally found no correlation between playing video games and gun-related killings. Even though US gun violence is high, the nine other countries with the highest video game usage have some of the lowest violent crime rates (and eight of those countries spend more per capita on video games than the United States). [ 97 ] Read More

Con 4 As sales of violent video games have significantly increased, violent juvenile crime rates have significantly decreased. In 2019, juvenile arrests for violent crimes were at an all-time low, a decline of 50% since 2006. Meanwhile, video game sales set a record in Mar. 2020, with Americans spending $5.6 billion on video game hardware, accessories, and assorted content. Both statistics continue a years-long trend. [ 143 ] [ 144 ] Total U.S. sales of video game hardware and software increased 204% from 1994 to 2014, reaching $13.1 billion in 2014, while violent crimes decreased 37% and murders by juveniles acting alone fell 76% in that same period. [ 82 ] [ 83 ] [ 133 ] [ 134 ] [ 135 ] The number of high school students who had been in at least one physical fight decreased from 43% in 1991 to 25% in 2013, and student reports of criminal victimization at school dropped by more than half from 1995 to 2011. [ 106 ] [ 107 ] A peer-reviewed study found that: “Monthly sales of video games were related to concurrent decreases in aggravated assaults.” [ 84 ] Read More

Con 5 Studies have shown that violent video games can have a positive effect on kindness, civic engagement, and prosocial behaviors. Research shows that playing violent video games can induce a feeling of guilt that leads to increased prosocial behavior (positive actions that benefit others) in the real world. [ 104 ] A study published in Computers in Human Behavior discovered that youths exposed to violence in action games displayed more prosocial behavior and civic engagement, “possibly due to the team-oriented multiplayer options in many of these games.” [ 103 ] Read More

Con 6 Many risk factors are associated with youth violence, but video games are not among them. The U.S. Surgeon General’s list of risk factors for youth violence included abusive parents, poverty, neglect, neighborhood crime, being male, substance use, and mental health problems, but not video games. [ 118 ] A peer-reviewed study even found a “real and significant” effect of hot weather on homicides and aggravated assaults, showing that heat is a risk factor for violence. [ 124 ] Read More

Con 7 Violent video game players know the difference between virtual violence in the context of a game and appropriate behavior in the real world. By age seven, children can distinguish fantasy from reality, and can tell the difference between video game violence and real-world violence. [ 99 ] [ 100 ] Video game players understand they are playing a game. Kids see fantasy violence all the time, from Harry Potter and the Minions to Bugs Bunny and Tom and Jerry. Their ability to distinguish between fantasy and reality prevents them from emulating video game violence in real life. [ 9 ] Exposure to fantasy is important for kids. Fisher-Price toy company stated: “Pretending is more than play: it’s a major part of a child’s development. Fantasy not only develops creative thinking, it’s also a way for children to deal with situations and problems that concern them.” [108] Read More

Con 8 Violent video games provide opportunities for children to explore consequences of violent actions, develop their moral compasses and release their stress and anger (catharsis) in the game, leading to less real world aggression. Violent games allow youth to experiment with moral issues such as war, violence, and death without real world consequences. A researcher at the Harvard Medical School Center for Mental Health and Media wrote about her research: “One unexpected theme that came up multiple times in our focus groups was a feeling among boys that violent games can teach moral lessons… Many war-themed video games allow or require players to take the roles of soldiers from different sides of a conflict, perhaps making players more aware of the costs of war.” [ 2 ] [ 38 ] A peer-reviewed study published in the Journal of Adolescent Health found that children, especially boys, play video games as a means of managing their emotions: “61.9% of boys played to ‘help me relax,’ 47.8% because ‘it helps me forget my problems,’ and 45.4% because ‘it helps me get my anger out.” [ 37 ] Researchers point to the cathartic effect of video games as a possible reason for why higher game sales have been associated with lower crime rates. [ 84 ] A peer-reviewed study in the Journal of Adolescent Research concluded that “Boys use games to experience fantasies of power and fame, to explore and master what they perceive as exciting and realistic environments (but distinct from real life), to work through angry feelings or relieve stress, and as social tools.” The games serve as a substitute for rough-and-tumble play. [ 36 ] Read More

Con 9 Studies claiming a causal link between video game violence and real life violence are flawed. Many studies failed to control for factors that contribute to children becoming violent, such as family history and mental health, plus most studies do not follow children over long periods of time. [ 10 ] [ 95 ] Video game experiments often have people playing a game for as little as ten minutes, which is not representative of how games are played in real life. In many laboratory studies, especially those involving children, researchers must use artificial measures of violence and aggression that do not translate to real-world violence and aggression, such as whether someone would force another person eat hot sauce or listen to unpleasant noises. [ 84 ] [ 94 ] According to Christopher J. Ferguson, a psychology professor at Stetson University, “matching video game conditions more carefully in experimental studies with how they are played in real life makes VVG’s [violent video games] effects on aggression essentially vanish.” [ 95 ] [ 96 ] Read More

Our Latest Updates (archived after 30 days)

ProCon/Encyclopaedia Britannica, Inc. 325 N. LaSalle Street, Suite 200 Chicago, Illinois 60654 USA

Natalie Leppard Managing Editor [email protected]

© 2023 Encyclopaedia Britannica, Inc. All rights reserved

• Video Games – Pros & Cons
• Pro & Con Quotes
• History of Video Games
• Did You Know?
• Entertainment Software Rating Board Categories

Cite This Page

• Artificial Intelligence
• Private Prisons
• Space Colonization
• Social Media
• Death Penalty
• School Uniforms
• Video Games
• Animal Testing
• Gun Control
• Banned Books
• Teachers’ Corner

ProCon.org is the institutional or organization author for all ProCon.org pages. Proper citation depends on your preferred or required style manual. Below are the proper citations for this page according to four style manuals (in alphabetical order): the Modern Language Association Style Manual (MLA), the Chicago Manual of Style (Chicago), the Publication Manual of the American Psychological Association (APA), and Kate Turabian's A Manual for Writers of Term Papers, Theses, and Dissertations (Turabian). Here are the proper bibliographic citations for this page according to four style manuals (in alphabetical order):

[Editor's Note: The APA citation style requires double spacing within entries.]

[Editor’s Note: The MLA citation style requires double spacing within entries.]

Video Games Can Help Boost Social, Memory & Cognitive Skills

A new review on the positive effects of playing video games finds that the interaction may boost children’s learning, health and social skills.

The American Psychological Association (APA) study comes out as debate continues among psychologists and other health professionals regarding the effects of violent media on youth.

An APA task force is conducting a comprehensive review of research on violence in video games and interactive media and will release its findings in 2014.

“Important research has already been conducted for decades on the negative effects of gaming, including addiction, depression and aggression, and we are certainly not suggesting that this should be ignored,” said lead author Isabela Granic, Ph.D.

“However, to understand the impact of video games on children’s and adolescents’ development, a more balanced perspective is needed.”

The article will be published in the journal American Psychologist .

A common viewpoint is that playing video games is intellectually lazy. New research however, suggests such play actually may strengthen a range of cognitive skills such as spatial navigation, reasoning, memory and perception.

This is particularly true for shooter video games that are often violent, the authors said.

A 2013 review of published studies found that playing shooter video games improved a player’s capacity to think about objects in three dimensions, just as well as academic courses to enhance these same skills, according to the study.

“This has critical implications for education and career development, as previous research has established the power of spatial skills for achievement in science, technology, engineering and mathematics,” Granic said.

This enhanced thinking was not found with playing other types of video games, such as puzzles or role-playing games.

Playing video games may also help children develop problem-solving skills, the authors said.

The more adolescents reported playing strategic video games, such as role-playing games, the more they improved in problem solving and school grades the following year, according to a long-term study published in 2013.

Children’s creativity was also enhanced by playing any kind of video game, including violent games, but not when the children used other forms of technology, such as a computer or cell phone, other research revealed.

Simple games that are easy to access and can be played quickly, such as “Angry Birds,” can improve players’ moods, promote relaxation and ward off anxiety, the study said.

“If playing video games simply makes people happier, this seems to be a fundamental emotional benefit to consider,” said Granic.

The authors also highlighted the possibility that video games are effective tools to learn resilience in the face of failure.

By learning to cope with ongoing failures in games, the authors suggest that children build emotional resilience they can rely upon in their everyday lives.

Another stereotype the research challenges is the socially isolated gamer.

More than 70 percent of gamers play with a friend and millions of people worldwide participate in massive virtual worlds through video games such as “Farmville” and “World of Warcraft,” the article noted.

Multiplayer games become virtual social communities, where decisions need to be made quickly about whom to trust or reject and how to lead a group, the authors said.

People who play video games, even if they are violent, that encourage cooperation are more likely to be helpful to others while gaming than those who play the same games competitively, a 2011 study found.

The article emphasized that educators are currently redesigning classroom experiences, integrating video games that can shift the way the next generation of teachers and students approach learning.

Likewise, physicians have begun to use video games to motivate patients to improve their health, the authors said.

In the video game “Re-Mission,” for instance, child cancer patients can control a tiny robot that shoots cancer cells, overcomes bacterial infections and manages nausea and other barriers to adhering to treatments.

A 2008 international study in 34 medical centers found significantly greater adherence to treatment and cancer-related knowledge among children who played “Re-Mission” compared to children who played a different computer game.

“It is this same kind of transformation, based on the foundational principle of play, that we suggest has the potential to transform the field of mental health,” Granic said.

“This is especially true because engaging children and youth is one of the most challenging tasks clinicians face.”

The authors recommended that teams of psychologists, clinicians and game designers work together to develop approaches to mental health care that integrate video game playing with traditional therapy.

Source: American Psychological Association

Young boy playing a video game photo by shutterstock .

Read this next

Self-efficacy is the belief you have in yourself and your ability to succeed. Setting small goals and visualizing your success are a few ways to build…

We're bending an ear to what experts say about ASMR (autonomous sensory meridian response) sounds and your mental health. Plus, four ASMR YouTubers…

Instructions For each item, indicate how much you agree or disagree with the statement. This takes most people about 3 minutes to complete. Take your

Read about a young womans determined pursuit of her lifes ambition to become a doctor. Despite many setbacks and roadblocks, she kept her eye on

Overcoming codependency and poor boundaries requires us to notice and value our personal needs, but many of us, understandably, deny our needs out of…

A new study suggests that hearing the word “virus” was likely to make your blood pressure rise, even befor

Specialized mental health units (MHUs) in correctional facilities may be critical to managing the high rates o

Americans are starting to come to terms with the insidious nature of racism — in the way we act, how we speak about others different

I first got to know Professor E. Kay Trimberger from her 2005 book, The New Single Woman. It was a delight to

Futurity is your source of research news from leading universities.

• About Futurity
• Universities
• Environment

Video games can change your brain for the better

"Video games are played by the overwhelming majority of our youth more than three hours every week, but the beneficial effects on decision-making abilities and the brain are not exactly known," says Mukesh Dhamala. "Our work provides some answers on that." (Credit: Getty Images )

You are free to share this article under the Attribution 4.0 International license.

Frequent players of video games show superior sensorimotor decision-making skills and enhanced activity in key regions of the brain as compared to non-players, according to a recent study.

The authors, who used functional magnetic resonance imaging (FMRI) in the study, say the findings suggest that video games could be a useful tool for training in perceptual decision-making.

“Video games are played by the overwhelming majority of our youth more than three hours every week, but the beneficial effects on decision-making abilities and the brain are not exactly known,” says lead researcher Mukesh Dhamala, associate professor in Georgia State University’s physics and astronomy department and the university’s Neuroscience Institute.

“Our work provides some answers on that,” Dhamala says. “Video game playing can effectively be used for training—for example, decision-making efficiency training and therapeutic interventions —once the relevant brain networks are identified.”

Dhamala was the adviser for Tim Jordan, the lead author of the paper, who offered a personal example of how such research could inform the use of video games for training the brain.

Jordan, who received a PhD in physics and astronomy from Georgia State in 2021, had weak vision in one eye as a child. As part of a research study when he was about 5, he was asked to cover his good eye and play video games as a way to strengthen the vision in the weak one. Jordan credits video game training with helping him go from legally blind in one eye to building strong capacity for visual processing, allowing him to eventually play lacrosse and paintball. He is now a postdoctoral researcher at UCLA.

The new research project involved 47 college-age participants, with 28 categorized as regular video game players and 19 as non-players.

The subjects laid inside an FMRI machine with a mirror that allowed them to see a cue immediately followed by a display of moving dots. Participants were asked to press a button in their right or left hand to indicate the direction the dots were moving, or resist pressing either button if there was no directional movement.

The researchers found that video game players were faster and more accurate with their responses.

Analysis of the resulting brain scans found that the differences were correlated with enhanced activity in certain parts of the brain.

“These results indicate that video game playing potentially enhances several of the subprocesses for sensation, perception, and mapping to action to improve decision-making skills,” the authors write. “These findings begin to illuminate how video game playing alters the brain in order to improve task performance and their potential implications for increasing task-specific activity.”

The study also notes there was no trade-off between speed and accuracy of response—the video game players were better on both measures.

“This lack of speed-accuracy trade-off would indicate video game playing as a good candidate for cognitive training as it pertains to decision-making,” the authors write.

The paper appears in the journal Neuroimage: Reports .

Source: Georgia State University

Do video games help or hurt well-being after a job loss?

Too much screen time is really bad for teen well-being, exercise can boost your video game skills, stay connected. subscribe to our newsletter..

Add your information below to receive daily updates.

• Phone This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.

An official website of the United States government

The .gov means it’s official. Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

The site is secure. The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

• Publications
• Account settings

Preview improvements coming to the PMC website in October 2024. Learn More or Try it out now .

• Advanced Search
• Journal List
• Wiley Open Access Collection

The contagious impact of playing violent video games on aggression: Longitudinal evidence

Tobias greitemeyer.

1 Department of Psychology, University of Innsbruck, Innsbruck Austria

Meta‐analyses have shown that violent video game play increases aggression in the player. The present research suggests that violent video game play also affects individuals with whom the player is connected. A longitudinal study ( N  = 980) asked participants to report on their amount of violent video game play and level of aggression as well as how they perceive their friends and examined the association between the participant's aggression and their friends’ amount of violent video game play. As hypothesized, friends’ amount of violent video game play at Time 1 was associated with the participant's aggression at Time 2 even when controlling for the impact of the participant's aggression at Time 1. Mediation analyses showed that friends’ aggression at Time 1 accounted for the impact of friends’ amount of violent video game play at Time 1 on the participant's aggression at Time 2. These findings suggest that increased aggression in video game players has an impact on the player's social network.

1. INTRODUCTION

Given its widespread use, the public and psychologists alike are concerned about the impact of violent video game play. In fact, a great number of studies have addressed the effects of exposure to violent video games (where the main goal is to harm other game characters) on aggression and aggression‐related variables. Meta‐analyses have shown that playing violent video games is associated with increased aggression in the player (Anderson et al., 2010 ; Greitemeyer & Mügge, 2014 ). The present longitudinal study examines the idea that violent video game play also affects the player's social network, suggesting that concern about the harmful effects of playing violent video games on a societal level is even more warranted.

1.1. Theoretical perspective

When explaining the effects of playing violent video games, researchers often refer to the General Aggression Model (GAM) proposed by Anderson & Bushman ( 2002 ). According to this theoretical model, person and situation variables (sometimes interactively) may affect a person's internal state, consisting of cognition, affect, and arousal. This internal state then affects how events are perceived and interpreted. Based on this decision process, the person behaves more or less aggressively in a social encounter. For example, playing violent video games is assumed to increase aggressive cognition and affect, which in turn results in behavioral aggression. An extension of this model further assumes that increased aggression due to previous violent video game play may instigate an aggression escalation cycle in that the victim also behaves aggressively (cf. Anderson & Bushman, 2018 , Figure 5). The present research tested key predictions derived from the GAM and its extension, that (a) violent video game play is associated with increased aggression in the player and that (b) individuals who are connected to the player will also become more aggressive.

1.2. Effects of violent video game play on aggression

The relationship between violent video game play and aggression has been examined in studies employing cross‐sectional, longitudinal, and experimental designs. Cross‐sectional correlational studies typically show a positive relationship between the amount of violent video game play and aggression in real‐world contexts (e.g., Gentile, Lynch, Linder, & Walsh, 2004 ; Krahé & Möller, 2004 ). Several longitudinal studies have been conducted, showing that habitual violent video game play predicts later aggression even after controlling for initial aggressiveness (e.g., Anderson, Buckley, & Carnagey, 2008 ). That violent video game play has a causal impact on aggression and related information processing has been demonstrated by experimental work (e.g., Anderson & Carnagey, 2009 ; Gabbiadini & Riva, 2018 ). Finally, meta‐analyses corroborated that violent video game play significantly increases aggressive thoughts, hostile affect, and aggressive behavior (Anderson et al., 2010 ; Greitemeyer & Mügge, 2014 ). Some studies failed to find significant effects (e.g., McCarthy, Coley, Wagner, Zengel, & Basham, 2016 ). However, given that the typical effect of violent video games on aggression is not large, it is to be expected that not all studies reveal significant effects.

1.3. The contagious effects of aggression

Abundant evidence has been collected that aggression and violence can be contagious (Dishion, & Tipsord, 2011 ; Huesmann, 2012 ; Jung, Busching, & Krahé, 2019 ). Indeed, the best predictor of (retaliatory) aggression is arguably previous violent victimization (Anderson et al., 2008 ; Goldstein, Davis, & Herman, 1975 ). However, even the observation of violence can lead to increased violence in the future (Widom, 1989 ). Overall, it is a well‐known finding that aggression begets further aggression. Given that violent video game play increases aggression, it thus may well be that this increased aggression then has an impact on people with whom the player is connected.

Correlational research provides initial evidence for the idea that the level of people's aggression is indeed associated with how often their friends play violent video games (Greitemeyer, 2018 ). In particular, participants who did not play violent video games were more aggressive the more their friends played violent video games. However, due to the cross‐sectional design, no conclusions about the direction of the effect are possible. It may be that violent video game players influence their friends (social influence), but it is also conceivable that similar people attract each other (homophily) or that there is some shared environmental factor that influences the behavior of both the players and their friends (confounding). That is, it is unclear whether indeed aggression due to playing violent video games spreads or whether the effect is reversed, such that aggressive people are prone to befriend others who are attracted to violent video game play. Moreover, it is possible that some third variable affected both, participants’ reported aggression and their friends’ amount of violent video game play. There is also the possibility that people are unsure about the extent to which their friends play violent video games. In this case, they may perceive their friends as behaving aggressively and then (wrongly) infer that the friends play violent video games. To disentangle these possibilities and to show that the effect of violent video game play (i.e., increased aggression in the player) indeed has an impact on the player's social network, relationships among variables have to be assessed over time while covarying prior aggression (Bond & Bushman, 2017 ; Christakis & Fowler, 2013 ).

Verheijen, Burk, Stoltz, van den Berg, and Cillessen ( 2018 ) tested the idea that players of violent video games have a long‐term impact on their social network. These authors found that participants’ exposure to violent video games increased their friend's aggressive behavior 1 year later. However, given that the authors did not examine whether the violent video game player's increased aggression accounts for the impact on their friend's aggressive behavior, it is unknown whether violent video game play indeed instigates an aggression cycle. For example, players of violent video games may influence their friends so that these friends will also play violent video games. Any increases in aggression could then be an effect of the friends playing violent video games on their own.

1.4. The present research

The present study examines the longitudinal association between the participant's aggression and their friends’ amount of violent video game play, employing an egocentric networking approach (Stark & Krosnick, 2017 ). In egocentric networking analyses, participants provide self‐reports but also report on how they perceive their friends. In the following, and in line with Greitemeyer ( 2018 ), the friends were treated as the players and the participant was treated as their friends’ social network. Please note that ties between the participant's friends (i.e., whether friends also know each other) were not assessed (Greitemeyer, 2018 ; Mötteli & Dohle, 2019 ), because this information was not needed for testing the hypothesis that participants become more aggressive if their friends play violent video games. It was expected that friends’ amount of violent video game play at Time 1 would predict the participant's aggression at Time 2 even when controlling for the impact of the participant's aggression and amount of violent video game play at Time 1. It was further examined whether friends’ aggression at Time 1 would account for the impact of friends’ amount of violent video game play at Time 1 on the participant's aggression at Time 2. Such findings would provide suggestive evidence that violent video game play may instigate an aggression cycle. The study received ethical approval from the Internal Review Board for Ethical Questions by the Scientific Ethical Committee of the University of Innsbruck. The data and materials are openly accessible at https://osf.io/jp8ew/ .

2.1. Participants

Participants were citizens of the U.S. who took part on Amazon Mechanical Turk. Because it was unknown how many of the participants will complete both questionnaires, no power analyses were conducted a priori but a large number of participants was run. At Time 1, there were 2,502 participants (1,376 females, 1,126 males; mean age = 35.7 years, SD =  11.8). Of these, 980 participants (522 females, 458 males; mean age = 38.9 years, SD =  12.5) completed the questionnaire at Time 2. Time 1 and Time 2 were 6 months apart. There were no data exclusions, and all participants were run before any analyses were performed. The questionnaire included some further questions (e.g., participant's perceived deprivation) that are not relevant for the present purpose and are reported elsewhere (Greitemeyer & Sagioglou, 2018 ). 1 Given that the questionnaire was relatively short, no attention checks were employed.

2.2. Procedure and measures

Procedure and measures were very similar to Greitemeyer ( 2018 ), with the main difference that individuals participated at two time points (instead of one). After providing demographics, self‐reported aggressive behavior was assessed. As in previous research (e.g., Krahé & Möller, 2010 ), participants indicated for 10 items how often they had shown the respective behavior in the past 6 months. Sample items are: “I have pushed another person” and “I have spread gossip about people I don't like” (5 items each address physical aggression and relational aggression, respectively). All items were rated on a scale from 1 ( never ) to 5 ( very often ), and scores were averaged. Participants were then asked about their amount of violent video game play, employing one item: “How often do you play violent video games (where the goal is to harm other game characters)?” (1 =  never to 7 =  very often ).

Afterwards, participants learned that they will be asked questions about people they feel closest to. These may be friends, coworkers, neighbors, relatives. They should answer questions for three contacts with whom they talked about important matters in the last few months. For each friend, they reported the level of aggression (αs between = 0.90 and 0.91) and the amount of violent video game play, employing the same questions as for themselves. Responses to the three friends were then averaged. Finally, participants were thanked and asked what they thought this experiment was trying to study, but none noted the hypothesis that their friend's amount of violent video game play would affect their own level of aggression. At Time 2, the same questions were employed. Reliabilities for how participants perceived the level of aggression for each friend were between 0.89 and 0.90.

Descriptive statistics, intercorrelations, and internal consistencies of all measures are shown in Table ​ Table1 1 .

Means, standard deviations, and bivariate correlations

Note : For Time 1, N  = 2,502; for Time 2, N  = 980. All correlation coefficients: p  < .001. Where applicable, α reliabilities are presented along the diagonal.

3.1. Time 1 ( N  = 2,502)

The relationship between the amount of violent video game play and reported aggression was significant, both for the participant and the friends. That is, violent video game play was associated with increased aggression in the player and participants perceived their friends who play more violent video games to be more aggressive than their less‐playing friends. Participant's and friends’ amount of violent video game play as well as their level of reported aggression, respectively, were also positively associated, indicating that participants perceived their friends to be similar to them. Most importantly, participant's aggression was significantly associated with friends’ amount of violent video game play. 2

It was then examined whether friends’ amount of violent video game play is still associated with the participant's aggression when controlling for the participant's amount of violent video game play. Participant sex (coded 1 = male, 2 = female) and age were included as covariates. In fact, a bootstrapping analysis showed that the impact of friends’ amount of violent video game play remained significant (point estimate = 0.08, SE  = 0.02, t  = 4.72, p  < .001, 95% confidence interval [CI] = [0.05, 0.11]). Participant's amount of violent video game play (point estimate = 0.03, SE  = 0.01, t  = 2.18, p  = .029, 95% CI = [0.00, 0.05]) and the interaction were also significant (point estimate = −0.01, SE  = 0.00, t  = 2.41, p  = .016, 95% CI = [−0.02, −0.00]). At low levels of the participant's amount of violent video game play (− 1 SD, equals that the participant does not play violent video games in the present data set), friends’ amount of violent video game play was associated with the participant's aggression (point estimate = 0.07, SE  = 0.01, t  = 5.06, p  < .001, 95% CI = [0.04, 0.10]). At high levels of the participant's amount of violent video game play ( + 1 SD), friends’ amount of violent video game play was also associated with the participant's aggression (point estimate = 0.03, SE  = 0.01, t  = 3.14, p  = .002, 95% CI = [0.01, 0.06]), but the effect was less pronounced. Participants were thus most strongly affected by whether their social network plays violent video games when they do not play violent video games themselves (Figure ​ (Figure1). 1 ). Participant sex was not significantly associated with the participant's aggression (point estimate = −0.04, SE  = 0.02, t  = 1.95, p  = .052, 95% CI = [−0.09, 0.00]), whereas age was (point estimate = −0.01, SE  = 0.00, t  = 7.84, p  < .001, 95% CI = [−0.009, −0.005]).

Simple slopes of the interactive effect of friends’ amount of violent video game play and the participant's amount of violent video game play on the participant's aggression, controlling for participant sex and age (Time 1, N  = 2,502)

3.2. Time 1 and Time 2 ( N  = 980)

To examine the impact of friends’ amount of violent video game play on the participant's aggression over time, a cross‐lagged regression analysis was performed on the data. Participant's amount of violent video game play, friends’ amount of violent video game play, participant's aggression at Time 1, as well as participant sex and age were used as predictors for participant's aggression at Time 2. The overall regression was significant, F (5,974) = 68.92, R 2  = 0.26, p  < .001. Most importantly, friends’ amount of violent video game play at Time 1 significantly predicted participant's aggression at Time 2, t  = 2.60, β  = .09, 95% CI = (0.02, 0.16), p  = .009. Participant's aggression showed high stability, t  = 16.77, β  = .48, 95% CI = (0.42, 0.53), p  < .001, whereas the participant's amount of violent video game play at Time 1 did not significantly predict the participant's aggression at Time 2, t  = 1.77, β  = −.07, 95% CI = (− 0.14, 0.01), p  = .077 (Figure ​ (Figure2 2 ). 3 , 4 Participant sex also received a significant regression weight, t  = 2.08, β  = −.06, 95% CI = (−0.12, −0.00), p  = .038, whereas age did not, t  = 1.93, β  = −.06, 95% CI = (−0.12, 0.00), p  = .054. The reverse effect that the participant's aggression at Time 1 predicts their friends’ amount of violent video game play at Time 2 when controlling for the participant's amount of violent video game play and friends’ amount of violent video game play at Time 1, as well as participant sex and age, was not significant, t  = 0.67, β  = .02, 95% CI = (−0.03, 0.06), p  = .504.

Participant's aggression at Time 2 simultaneously predicted by friends’ amount of violent video game play, participant's aggression, and participant's amount of violent video game play at Time 1. Participant sex and age were controlled for, but were not included in the figure (see the main text for the impact of participant sex and age). * p  < .01, ** p  < .001 ( N  = 980)

Finally, it was examined whether the impact of friends’ amount of violent video game play at Time 1 on the participant's aggression at Time 2 would be mediated by friends’ level of aggression at Time 1 (while controlling for the participant's aggression and amount of violent video game play at Time 1 as well as participant sex and age). A bootstrapping analysis (with 5.000 iterations) showed that the impact of friends’ level of aggression at Time 1 on the participant's aggression at Time 2 was significant (point estimate = 0.16, SE  = 0.04, t  = 4.28, p  < .001, 95% CI = [0.09, 0.23]). Participant's aggression at Time 1 was also a significant predictor (point estimate = 0.34, SE  = 0.03, t  = 10.19, p  < .001, 95% CI = [0.27, 0.40]). Friends’ amount of violent video game play at Time 1 (point estimate = 0.03, SE  = 0.01, t  = 1.82, p  = .069, 95% CI = [−0.00, 0.05]) and participant's amount of violent video game play at Time 1 (point estimate = −0.01, SE  = 0.01, t  = 1.65, p  = .099, 95% CI = [−0.03, 0.00]) were not significant predictors. Participant sex significantly predicted the participant's aggression at Time 2 (point estimate = −0.06, SE  = 0.03, t  = 2.31, p  = .021, 95% CI = [−0.11, −0.01]), whereas age did not (point estimate = −0.00, SE  = 0.00, t  = 1.90, p  = .058, 95% CI = [−0.00, 0.00]). The indirect effect was significantly different from zero (point estimate = 0.01, 95% CI = [.00, 0.02]), suggesting that participants are more aggressive if their friends play violent video games for the reason that these friends are more aggressive. Figure ​ Figure3 3 displays a simplified version of this mediation effect, based on regression coefficients and without controlling for the participant's aggression at Time 1, the participant's amount of violent video game play at Time 1, participant sex, and age.

Mediation of the impact of friends’ violent video game exposure (VVE) at Time 1 on the participant's aggression at Time 2 by friends’ aggression at Time 1. All paths are significant. β * = the coefficient from friends’ VVE at Time 1 to the participant's aggression at Time 2 when controlling for friends’ aggression at Time 1 ( N  = 980)

4. DISCUSSION

Violent video games have an impact on the player's aggression (Anderson et al., 2010 ; Greitemeyer & Mügge, 2014 ), but—as the present study shows—they also increase aggression in the player's social network. In particular, participants who do not play violent video games reported to be more aggressive the more their friends play violent video games. Mediation analyses showed that the increased aggression in the friends accounted for the relationship between friends’ amount of violent video game play and the participant's aggression. Because changes in aggression over time were assessed, the present study provides evidence for the hypothesized effect that violent video game play is associated with increased aggression in the player, which then instigates aggression in their social network. Importantly, the impact of the participant's amount of violent video game play was controlled for, indicating that the relationship between friends’ amount of violent video game play and the participant's aggression is not due to the friends being similar to the participants. Moreover, the reverse effect that aggressive people will become attracted to others who play violent video games was not reliable. The present research thus documents the directional effects that violent video games is associated with increased aggression in the player and that this increased aggression then has an impact on people with whom the player is connected.

Overall, the present study provides comprehensive support for key hypotheses derived from the GAM and its extension (Anderson & Bushman, 2018 ). It shows that violent video game play is associated with increased aggression in the player and it documents that others who are connected to players might be also affected even when controlling for their own amount of violent video game play. To the best of my knowledge, this study is the first that shows that because violent video game players are more aggressive their friends will become aggressive, too. Previous research either employed a cross‐sectional design and thus could not address the direction of the effect (Greitemeyer, 2018 ) or did not examine whether the effect of violent video game play (i.e., increased aggression) indeed spreads (Verheijen et al., 2018 ). As proposed by the GAM and its extension (Anderson & Bushman, 2018 ), increased aggression in violent video game players appears to instigate an aggression escalation cycle (cf. Anderson et al., 2008 ).

It is noteworthy, however, that the longitudinal effect of the participant's amount of violent video game play at Time 1 on the participant's aggression at Time 2 was not reliable. Hence, although there were significant correlations between participants’ aggression and their violent video game use at both time points, the present study does not show that repeatedly playing violent video games leads to long‐term changes in aggression. However, a recent meta‐analysis of the long‐term effects of playing violent video games confirmed that violent video game play does increase physical aggression over time (Prescott, Sargent, & Hull, 2018 ), although the effect size was relatively small ( β  = 0.11) and thus single studies that produce nonsignificant results are to be expected. Importantly, in the present study, a single‐item measure of violent video game play was employed. In contrast, previous research on the relationship between violent video game play and the player's aggression has often employed multi‐item measurement scales that are typically more reliable and precise (for an overview, Busching et al., 2015 ). Hence, it may well be that due to the limitations of the single‐item measure of the participant's amount of violent video game play the relationship between participants’ violent game play and their aggressive behavior was artificially reduced.

Even though the longitudinal design allows ruling out a host of alternative explanations for the impact of violent video games on the player's social network, causality can only inferred by using an experimental design. Future research may thus randomly assign participants to play a violent or nonviolent video game (players) and assesses their aggression against new participants (partners). It can be expected that the partners suffer more aggression when the player had played a violent, compared to a nonviolent, video game. Afterwards, it could be tested whether the partner of a violent video game player is more aggressive than a partner of a nonviolent video game player. Given that the partner is not exposed to any video games, firm causal conclusions could be drawn that violent video game play affects aggression in people who are connected to violent video game players. It could be also tested whether the partner of a violent video game player would not only be more likely to retaliate against the player, but also against a third party. In fact, previous research into displaced aggression has shown that people may react aggressively against a target that is innocent of any wrongdoing after they have been provoked by another person (Marcus‐Newhall, Pedersen, Carlson, & Miller, 2000 ). It may thus well be that the effect of playing violent video games spreads in social networks and that even people who are only indirectly linked to violent video game players are affected.

An important limitation of the present egocentric network data is the reliance on the participant's perception of their social network, leaving the possibility that participants did not accurately perceive their friends. It is noteworthy that participants perceived their friends to be highly similar to them. In this regard, it is important to keep in mind that participants always provided self‐ratings first, followed by perceptions of their friends. It is thus conceivable that participants used their self‐ratings as anchors for the perceptions of their friends. Such a tendency, however, would reduce the unique effect of friends’ amount of violent video game play on the participant's aggression when controlling for the participant's amount of violent video game play. The finding that participants in particular who do not play violent video games reported to be more aggressive if their friends play violent video games also suggests that the impact of violent video games on the player's social network is not due to participants providing both self‐reports and how they perceive their friends. Finally, rather than by their friends’ objective qualities, people's behavior should be more likely to be affected by their subjective perceptions of their friends.

As noted in the introduction, participants may not be aware of the extent to which their friends play violent video games and hence used the perception of how aggressive their friends are as an anchor for estimating their friends’ amount of violent video game play. Importantly, however, the participant's aggression at Time 2 was significantly predicted by friends’ amount of violent video game play at Time 1 even when controlling for friends’ level of aggression at Time 1 (see Figure ​ Figure3). 3 ). Moreover, whereas aggression might be used for estimating violent video game exposure of the friends, participants should be well aware of the extent to which they play violent video games so that anchoring effects for participant's self‐reports are unlikely. However, given that it cannot be completely ruled out that the correlation between violent game play of friends at Time 1 and aggressive behavior of participants at Time 2 reflects a pseudocorrelation that is determined by the correlation between aggressive behavior of friends at Time 1 and aggressive behavior of the participant at Time 2, future research that employs sociocentric network analyses where information about the friends is provided by the friends themselves would be informative.

Another limitation is the employment of self‐report measures to assess aggressive behavior. Self‐report measures are quite transparent, so participants may have rated themselves more favorably than is actually warranted. In fact, mean scores of reported aggressive behavior were quite low. This reduced variance, however, typically diminishes associations with other constructs. In any case, observing how actual aggressive behavior is influenced by the social network's violent video game play would be an important endeavor for future work. It also has to be acknowledged that some participants may have reported on different friends at Time 1 and Time 2. Future research would be welcome that ensures that participants consider the same friends at different time points.

Future research may also shed some further light on the psychological processes. In the present study, the violent video game players’ higher levels of aggression accounted for the relationship between their amount of violent video game play and the participants’ reported aggression. It would be interesting to examine why the players’ aggression influences the aggression level of their social network. One possibility is that witnessing increased aggression by others (who play violent video games) leads to greater acceptance of norms condoning aggression, which are known to be an antecedent of aggressive behavior (Huesmann & Guerra, 1997 ). After all, if others behave aggressively, why should one refrain from engaging in the same behavior.

Another limitation of the present work is that it was not assessed how participants and their friends play violent video games. A recent survey (Lenhart, Smith, Anderson, Duggan, & Perrin, 2015 ) showed that many video game users play video games together with their friends, either cooperatively or competitively. This is insofar noteworthy as there might be some overlap between participants’ and their friends’ violent video game play. Moreover, cooperative video games have been shown to increase prosocial tendencies (Greitemeyer, 2013 ; Greitemeyer & Cox, 2013 ; but see Verheijen, Stoltz, van den Berg, & Cillessen, 2019 ) and decrease aggression (Velez, Greitemeyer, Whitaker, Ewoldsen, & Bushman, 2016 ). In contrast, competitive video game play increases aggressive affect and behavior (e.g., Adachi & Willoughby, 2016 ). Hence, future research should examine more closely whether participants play violent video games on their own, competitively, or cooperatively. The latter may show some positive effects of video game play, both on the player and the player's friends, whereas opposing effects should be found for competitive video games.

To obtain high statistical power and thus to increase the probability to detect significant effects, data were collected via an online survey. The current sample was drawn from the MTurk population (for a review of the trend to rely on MTurk samples in social and personality psychology, see Anderson et al., 2019 ). Samples drawn from MTurk are not demographically representative of the U.S. population as a whole. For example, MTurk samples are disproportionally young and female and they are better educated but tend to be unemployed (for a review, Keith, Tay, & Harms, 2017 ). On the other hand, MTurk samples are more representative of the U.S. population than are college student samples (Paolacci & Chandler, 2014 ) and the pool of participants is geographically diverse. Moreover, MTurk participants appear to be more attentive to survey instructions than are undergraduate students (Hauser & Schwarz, 2016 ). Nevertheless, future research on the impact of violent video game play on the player's social network that employs other samples would improve the generalizability of the present findings.

In conclusion, violent video game play is not only associated with increased aggression in the player but also in the player's social network. In fact, increased aggression due to violent video game play appears to instigate further aggression in the player's social network. This study thus provides suggestive evidence that not only players of violent video games are more aggressive, but also individuals become more aggressive who do not play violent video games themselves but are connected to others who do play.

Greitemeyer T. The contagious impact of playing violent video games on aggression: Longitudinal evidence . Aggressive Behavior . 2019; 45 :635–642. 10.1002/ab.21857 [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]

1 Participant's perceived deprivation was positively related to both violent video game exposure, r (2,502) = 0.08, p  < .001, and reported aggression, r (2,502) = 0.14, p  < .001. However, the relationship between violent video game exposure and reported aggression, r (2,502) = 0.15, p  < .001, was relatively unaffected when controlling for perceived deprivation, r (2,499) = 0.14, p  < .001.

2 Given that the measures of violent video game exposure and aggressive behavior violated the normal distribution, Spearman's ρ coefficients were also calculated. However, the pattern of finding was very similar (e.g., the crucial relationship between the participant's aggression and friends’ amount of violent video game play was 0.18 [Pearson] and 0.17 [Spearman]). All these analyses can be obtained from the author upon request.

3 When dropping friends’ amount of violent video game play from the analysis, the participant's amount of violent video game play at Time 1 still did not predict participant's aggression at Time 2, t  = 0.44, β  = −.01, 95% CI = (− 0.02, 0.01), p  = .657 (when controlling for participant's aggression at Time 1, participant sex, and age).

4 Given that violent video games primarily model physical aggression, violent video games should have a stronger effect on the player's physical aggression than on other types of aggression. In fact, the impact of the participant's amount of violent video game play at Time 1 on the participant's physical aggression at Time 2, t  = 1.49, β  = .04, 95% CI = (− 0.00, 0.02), p  = .136 (when controlling for the participant's physical aggression at Time 1), was more pronounced than the impact on the participant's relational aggression at Time 2, t  = 0.52, β  = .02, 95% CI = (− 0.01, 0.02), p  = .603 (when controlling for the participant's relational aggression at Time 1), but both effects were not significant.

• Adachi, P. J. C. , & Willoughby, T. (2016). The longitudinal association between competitive video game play and aggression among adolescents and young adults . Child Development , 87 , 1877–1892. 10.1111/cdev.12556 [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Anderson, C. A. , Allen, J. J. , Plante, C. , Quigley‐McBride, A. , Lovett, A. , & Rokkum, J. N. (2019). The MTurkification of social and personality psychology . Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin , 45 , 842–850. 10.1177%2F0146167218798821 [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Anderson, C. A. , Buckley, K. E. , & Carnagey, N. L. (2008). Creating your own hostile environment: A laboratory examination of trait aggressiveness and the violence escalation cycle . Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin , 34 , 462–473. 10.1177/0146167207311282 [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Anderson, C. A. , & Bushman, B. J. (2002). Human aggression . Annual Review of Psychology , 53 , 27–51. 10.1146/annurev.psych.53.100901.135231 [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Anderson, C. A. , & Bushman, B. J. (2018). Media violence and the General Aggression Model . Journal of Social Issues , 74 , 386–413. 10.1111/josi.12275 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Anderson, C. A. , & Carnagey, N. L. (2009). Causal effects of violent sports video games on aggression: Is it competitiveness or violent content? Journal of Experimental Social Psychology , 45 , 731–739. 10.1016/j.jesp.2009.04.019 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Anderson, C. A. , Sakamoto, A. , Gentile, D. A. , Ihori, N. , Shibuya, A. , Yukawa, S. , … Kobayashi, K. (2008). Longitudinal effects of violent video games on aggression in Japan and the United States . Pediatrics , 122 , e1067–e1072. 10.1542/peds.2008-1425 [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Anderson, C. A. , Shibuya, A. , Ihori, N. , Swing, E. L. , Bushman, B. J. , Sakamoto, A. , … Saleem, M. (2010). Violent video game effects on aggression, empathy, and prosocial behavior in Eastern and Western countries . Psychological Bulletin , 136 , 151–173. 10.1037/a0018251 [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Bond, R. M. , & Bushman, B. J. (2017). The contagious spread of violence among US adolescents through social networks . American Journal of Public Health , 107 , 288–294. 10.2105/AJPH.2016.303550 [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Busching, R. , Gentile, D. A. , Krahé, B. , Möller, I. , Khoo, A. , Walsh, D. A. , & Anderson, C. A. (2015). Testing the reliability and validity of different measures of violent video game use in the United States, Singapore, and Germany . Psychology of Popular Media Culture , 4 , 97–111. [ Google Scholar ]
• Christakis, N. A. , & Fowler, J. H. (2013). Social contagion theory: Examining dynamic social networks and human behavior . Statistics in Medicine , 32 , 556–577. 10.1002/sim.5408 [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Dishion, T. J. , & Tipsord, J. M. (2011). Peer contagion in child and adolescent social and emotional development . Annual Review of Psychology , 62 , 189–214. 10.1146/annurev.psych.093008.100412 [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Gabbiadini, A. , & Riva, P. (2018). The lone gamer: Social exclusion predicts violent video game preferences and fuels aggressive inclinations in adolescent players . Aggressive Behavior , 44 , 113–124. 10.1002/ab.21735 [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Gentile, D. A. , Lynch, P. J. , Linder, J. R. , & Walsh, D. A. (2004). The effects of violent video game habits on adolescent hostility, aggressive behaviors, and school performance . Journal of Adolescence , 27 , 5–22. 10.1016/j.adolescence.2003.10.002 [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Goldstein, J. H. , Davis, R. W. , & Herman, D. (1975). Escalation of aggression: Experimental studies . Journal of Personality and Social Psychology , 31 , 162–170. 10.1037/h0076241 [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Greitemeyer, T. (2013). Playing video games cooperatively increases empathic concern . Social Psychology , 44 , 408–413. 10.1027/1864-9335/a000154 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Greitemeyer, T. (2018). The spreading impact of playing violent video games on aggression . Computers in Human Behavior , 80 , 216–219. 10.1016/j.chb.2017.11.022 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Greitemeyer, T. , & Cox, C. (2013). There's no “I” in team: Effects of cooperative video games on cooperative behavior: Video games and cooperation . European Journal of Social Psychology , 43 , 224–228. 10.1002/ejsp.1940 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Greitemeyer, T. , & Mügge, D. O. (2014). Video games do affect social outcomes: A meta‐analytic review of the effects of violent and prosocial video game play . Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin , 40 , 578–589. 10.1177/0146167213520459 [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Greitemeyer, T. , & Sagioglou, C. (2018). The impact of personal relative deprivation on aggression over time . The Journal of Social Psychology , 3–7. 10.1080/00224545.2018.1549013 [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Hauser, D. J. , & Schwarz, N. (2016). Attentive Turkers: MTurk participants perform better on online attention checks than do subject pool participants . Behavior Research Methods , 48 , 400–407. 10.3758/s13428-015-0578-z [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Huesmann, L. R. (2012). The contagion of violence: The extent, the processes, and the outcomes. Social and economic costs of violence: Workshop summary (pp. 63–69). Washington, DC: IOM (Institute of Medicine) and NRC (National, Research Council). [ Google Scholar ]
• Huesmann, L. R. , & Guerra, N. G. (1997). Children's normative beliefs about aggression and aggressive behavior . Journal of Personality and Social Psychology , 72 , 408–419. 10.1037/0022-3514.72.2.408 [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Jung, J. , Busching, R. , & Krahé, B. (2019). Catching aggression from one's peers: A longitudinal and multilevel analysis . Social and Personality Psychology Compass , 13 , e12433 10.1111/spc3.12433 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Keith, M. G. , Tay, L. , & Harms, P. D. (2017). Systems perspective of Amazon Mechanical Turk for organizational research: Review and recommendations . Frontiers in Psychology , 8 , 1359 10.3389/fpsyg.2017.01359 [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Krahé, B. , & Möller, I. (2004). Playing violent electronic games, hostile attributional style, and aggression‐related norms in German adolescents . Journal of Adolescence , 27 , 53–69. 10.1016/j.adolescence.2003.10.006 [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Krahé, B. , & Möller, I. (2010). Longitudinal effects of media violence on aggression and empathy among German adolescents . Journal of Applied Developmental Psychology , 31 , 401–409. 10.1016/j.appdev.2010.07.003 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Lenhart, A. , Smith, A. , Anderson, M. , Duggan, M. , & Perrin, A. (2015). Teens, technology and friendships Pew Internet and American Life Project. Retrieved from http://www.pewinternet.org/2015/08/06/teens-technology-and-friendships/
• Marcus‐Newhall, A. , Pedersen, W. C. , Carlson, M. , & Miller, N. (2000). Displaced aggression is alive and well: A meta‐analytic review . Journal of Personality and Social Psychology , 78 , 670–689. 10.1037/0022-3514.78.4.670 [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• McCarthy, R. J. , Coley, S. L. , Wagner, M. F. , Zengel, B. , & Basham, A. (2016). Does playing video games with violent content temporarily increase aggressive inclinations? A pre‐registered experimental study . Journal of Experimental Social Psychology , 67 , 13–19. 10.1016/j.jesp.2015.10.009 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Mötteli, S. , & Dohle, S. (2019). Egocentric social network correlates of physical activity . Journal of Sport and Health Science , 2–8. 10.1016/j.jshs.2017.01.002 [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Paolacci, G. , & Chandler, J. (2014). Inside the Turk: Understanding Mechanical Turk as a participant pool . Current Directions in Psychological Science , 23 , 184–188. 10.1177/0963721414531598 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Prescott, A. T. , Sargent, J. D. , & Hull, J. G. (2018). Metaanalysis of the relationship between violent video game play and physical aggression over time . Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences , 115 , 9882–9888. 10.1073/pnas.1611617114 [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Stark, T. H. , & Krosnick, J. A. (2017). GENSI: A new graphical tool to collect ego‐centered network data . Social Networks , 48 , 36–45. 10.1016/j.socnet.2016.07.007 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Velez, J. A. , Greitemeyer, T. , Whitaker, J. L. , Ewoldsen, D. R. , & Bushman, B. J. (2016). Violent video games and reciprocity: The attenuating effects of cooperative game play on subsequent aggression . Communication Research , 43 , 447–467. 10.1177/0093650214552519 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Verheijen, G. P. , Burk, W. J. , Stoltz, S. E. M. J. , van den Berg, Y. H. M. , & Cillessen, A. H. N. (2018). Friendly fire: Longitudinal effects of exposure to violent video games on aggressive behavior in adolescent friendship dyads . Aggressive Behavior , 44 , 257–267. 10.1002/ab.21748 [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Verheijen, G. P. , Stoltz, S. E. M. J. , van den Berg, Y. H. M. , & Cillessen, A. H. N. (2019). The influence of competitive and cooperative video games on behavior during play and friendship quality in adolescence . Computers in Human Behavior , 91 , 297–304. 10.1016/j.chb.2018.10.023 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Widom, C. S. (1989). Does violence beget violence? A critical examination of the literature . Psychological Bulletin , 106 , 3–28. 10.1037/0033-2909.115.2.287 [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]

How Playing Video Games Can Improve Problem-Solving Skills

Nelson Sarah

In recent years, video games have gained significant popularity among people of all ages. Often dismissed as mere entertainment or a waste of time, video games have actually been found to have numerous cognitive benefits, including improving problem-solving skills. Contrary to popular belief, video games can be a valuable tool for developing critical thinking, strategic planning, and decision-making abilities. This article explores the positive impact of video games on problem-solving skills and why they should be seen as more than just a source of entertainment.

The Cognitive Benefits of Video Games

Video games are not just mindless activities; they require players to engage with complex challenges and solve problems within the game world. This can stimulate various cognitive processes, such as critical thinking, pattern recognition, and logical reasoning. When playing video games, players are often presented with obstacles that require creative thinking and strategic planning to overcome. This constant mental stimulation can significantly improve problem-solving skills.

One particular area in which video games excel in promoting problem-solving skills is through their use of puzzles and quests. Many video games incorporate intricate puzzles and quests that require players to think critically and analyze the situation at hand. These challenges often present players with multiple solutions, allowing them to experiment and learn from their mistakes. Navigating through these virtual worlds teaches players to approach problems from different angles and develop innovative solutions.

Developing Strategic Thinking

Video games also encourage the development of strategic thinking skills. In many games, players are required to devise strategies to accomplish specific goals or overcome opponents. This involves analyzing the environment, planning moves in advance, and making decisions based on calculated risks. Strategy games, in particular, provide an excellent platform for players to hone their problem-solving skills.

Take, for example, a popular strategy game like “Civilization.” In this game, players take on the role of leaders and must build and manage civilizations. They must make decisions about resource allocation, diplomacy, warfare, and technological advancements. Each decision has both immediate and long-term consequences, requiring players to think critically and prioritize their actions. This type of gameplay can help improve problem-solving skills by teaching players to evaluate different options, weigh pros and cons, and anticipate outcomes.

Fast-Paced Decision Making

Another significant aspect of video games that fosters problem-solving skills is the need for quick decision making. Many video games, especially action-packed ones, require players to make split-second decisions under intense pressure. This trains players to process information rapidly, assess risks, and develop effective strategies on the fly. These skills can translate into real-life situations that require quick thinking and decision-making, such as emergencies or high-pressure work environments.

One genre of video games that particularly emphasizes fast-paced decision making is first-person shooters. Games like “Call of Duty” and “Counter-Strike” demand players to react swiftly to ever-changing situations, adapt to new challenges, and formulate strategies in real-time. By repeatedly engaging in these high-speed decision-making scenarios, players can enhance their ability to think quickly and make effective choices under pressure.

Collaboration and Teamwork

Video games are not just solitary activities; many of them offer opportunities for collaboration and teamwork. Multiplayer games, both online and offline, require players to work together towards a common goal, often involving problem-solving challenges. This cooperative gameplay fosters communication, coordination, and teamwork skills — all of which are crucial for effective problem-solving in various domains of life.

For instance, cooperative games like “Overwatch” or “Minecraft” require players to communicate with their teammates, strategize, and take on specific roles to achieve success. Players must coordinate their efforts, share information, and adapt to the changing dynamics of the game. These interactions promote problem-solving skills by encouraging players to consider different perspectives, leverage each other’s strengths, and solve complex challenges as a team.

Real-World Applications

The problem-solving skills gained through video games have real-world applications beyond the virtual realm. Many studies have shown that individuals who engage in video games regularly perform better in tasks that require problem-solving abilities. This could include academic disciplines like mathematics, science, and engineering, as well as professional fields like medicine, business, and engineering.

Furthermore, problem-solving skills acquired through video games can translate into improved decision-making abilities, adaptability, and critical thinking in everyday life. Whether it’s finding solutions to daily challenges or navigating complex social situations, individuals with well-developed problem-solving skills are better equipped to deal with the complexities of the modern world.

Video games have often been criticized for their potential negative impact on individuals, particularly young people. However, research indicates that video games can actually be beneficial when it comes to improving problem-solving skills. The cognitive challenges, strategic thinking, fast-paced decision-making, collaboration, and real-world applications of video games make them valuable tools for enhancing problem-solving abilities.

Instead of demonizing video games, it is crucial to recognize their potential as a medium for learning and skill development. Just as physical activities improve physical fitness, video games have the potential to enhance cognitive abilities and problem-solving skills. So next time you pick up a controller, remember that you’re not just having fun — you’re also sharpening your mental acuity and problem-solving prowess.

Summer Shop

Written by Nelson Sarah

Text to speech

• Share full article

For more audio journalism and storytelling, download New York Times Audio , a new iOS app available for news subscribers.

• Apple Podcasts
• Google Podcasts

The Republican Plan to Challenge a Harris Victory

How a right-wing takeover of an obscure, unelected board in georgia could swing the election..

Hosted by Michael Barbaro

Featuring Nick Corasaniti

Produced by Olivia Natt Asthaa Chaturvedi and Eric Krupke

Edited by Patricia Willens

With Lexie Diao and Michael Benoist

Original music by Dan Powell Corey Schreppel Rowan Niemisto and Diane Wong

Engineered by Chris Wood

Listen and follow ‘The Daily’ Apple Podcasts | Spotify | Amazon Music | YouTube | iHeartRadio

At the Democratic National Convention, party officials are celebrating polls showing that Kamala Harris is now competitive with Donald Trump in every major swing state across the country.

But in one of those swing states, Republicans have laid the groundwork to challenge a potential Harris victory this fall, by taking over an obscure, unelected board.

Nick Corasaniti, a Times reporter who focuses on voting and elections, explains.

On today’s episode

Nick Corasaniti , a reporter covering national politics for The New York Times.

Background reading

The unelected body that shapes voting rules in Georgia has a new conservative majority, whose members question the state’s 2020 results. They now have new power to influence the results in 2024 .

Kamala Harris and Donald Trump are in close races across Arizona, Georgia, Nevada and North Carolina , crucial swing states that Mr. Trump had seemed poised to run away with.

There are a lot of ways to listen to The Daily. Here’s how.

We aim to make transcripts available the next workday after an episode’s publication. You can find them at the top of the page.

Fact-checking by Susan Lee .

The Daily is made by Rachel Quester, Lynsea Garrison, Clare Toeniskoetter, Paige Cowett, Michael Simon Johnson, Brad Fisher, Chris Wood, Jessica Cheung, Stella Tan, Alexandra Leigh Young, Lisa Chow, Eric Krupke, Marc Georges, Luke Vander Ploeg, M.J. Davis Lin, Dan Powell, Sydney Harper, Michael Benoist, Liz O. Baylen, Asthaa Chaturvedi, Rachelle Bonja, Diana Nguyen, Marion Lozano, Corey Schreppel, Rob Szypko, Elisheba Ittoop, Mooj Zadie, Patricia Willens, Rowan Niemisto, Jody Becker, Rikki Novetsky, Nina Feldman, Will Reid, Carlos Prieto, Ben Calhoun, Susan Lee, Lexie Diao, Mary Wilson, Alex Stern, Sophia Lanman, Shannon Lin, Diane Wong, Devon Taylor, Alyssa Moxley, Olivia Natt, Daniel Ramirez and Brendan Klinkenberg.

Our theme music is by Jim Brunberg and Ben Landsverk of Wonderly. Special thanks to Sam Dolnick, Paula Szuchman, Lisa Tobin, Larissa Anderson, Julia Simon, Sofia Milan, Mahima Chablani, Elizabeth Davis-Moorer, Jeffrey Miranda, Maddy Masiello, Isabella Anderson, Nina Lassam and Nick Pitman.

Nick Corasaniti is a Times reporter covering national politics, with a focus on voting and elections. More about Nick Corasaniti

Advertisement