Americans are far too used to hearing on the news that a mass shooting has occurred. Regardless of where it takes place, Americans find themselves in the same frustrating position of having to yet again ask, “what can we do to stop this?” It is a question that many countries have addressed differently. Many Americans see the cause of these mass shootings as a mental health issue. A subsection of that group, in particular, believes video games have a large influence over a shooter’s decision to pull the trigger. Given the limited evidence for the relationship between video games and mass-shootings, lawmakers and consumers of the United States both stand to benefit from a careful assessment of the information available.
Political Perspectives and the Video Game Violence Debate
The shooting epidemic in America is a hot button issue. People on both sides of the aisle have strong opinions on what needs to be done in response to these acts of terror. Although the issue is made political, leaders from both Republican and Democratic parties have cited video games as one of the likely causes for an American mass shooter's decisions. In a statement following the shooting at Stoneman Douglas High School in 2018, President Trump suggested that the “gruesome and grisly video games that are now commonplace” could be encouraging the mass shootings that have like video game playing, grown in frequency every year. Many of the arguments made by politicians follow the logic that video games normalize violence and inadvertently encourage aggression among its player base, at times having a hand in driving them to commit mass crimes. Researchers, however, insist the relationship between video games and gun violence is not nearly as direct nor clear. In 2015, the American Psychological Association (APA) released a policy statement clarifying that only a link to increased aggression has been proven. They emphasized the importance of distinguishing aggression from extreme violence, especially in the form of mass shootings.
Evaluating Research: Video Games' Impact on Aggression and Violence
In order to test the claim that violence in video games do not increase the likelihood of mass shootings, evidence was taken from academic journals and investigative reports. Many of these journal articles consult Christopher Ferguson as a resource, being widely regarded for having conducted numerous studies on the matter. Each of the listed journal articles use data from either the authors’ own studies or other experts in their field. Below are ten pieces of evidence to test the causality between video games and mass shootings:
A profiling of the average school shooter included ‘unusual fascination’ with violent media as a potential predictor (Federal Bureau of Investigations, 1999)
A meta-analysis observed video games had little to no impact on adolescents’ aggression, mental health, prosocial behavior, and academic performance (Ferguson et al., 2015)
An extensive survey suggests no association between people playing video games and whether or not they own a gun (Rajan et al., 2014)
Violent video games can cause increases in aggression however not in likelihood to take a life (Liu et al., 2015)
Social and familial backgrounds play a larger role in determining risk of violent behavior instead of video games (DeCamp et al., 2016)
Long-term experience of the U.S. military suggests that video games are an effective tool for training people to use firearms (Garbarino et al., 2002)
Screen portrayals of violence do not reinforce aggressive attitudes and behaviors if the consequences of violence are demonstrated (Grossman et al., 1999)
A comprehensive study on familiarity with violent video games found reduced guilt and blameworthiness suggesting moral disengagement from committing violent acts (Hartmann et al., 2010)
Exposure to violent video games increases physiological arousal and aggression-related thoughts and feelings (Anderson et al., 2001)
A decrease in violent crime in response to violent video games was observed from a controlled group (Markey et al., 2015)
The profiling activity conducted by the Federal Bureau of Investigations (FBI) in 1999 was an attempt to help the public make sense of school shootings and why certain individuals might commit serious acts of violence. The Secret Service report found that although the school shooters were still rather diverse, many would provide information about their plans ahead of time. Aside from this predictive theme, the FBI included ‘unusual fascination’ with violent media as a potential predictor for risk. Given that most young males already consume considerable amounts of violent content, the term ‘unusual’ suggested a degree that was borderline extreme. As if to suggest there was a link between video games and school shootings, the report went on to describe the school shooter as someone who spends “inordinate amounts of time playing video games with violent themes,” often demonstrating more interest in the violent images than the game itself. The FBI has since come under some criticism for having only used a total of eighteen cases in developing the profile. The report, being one of the earliest attempts at understanding the motivations of the school shooter, remained influential in framing public opinion on violent video games and its consumption.
The probability of observing this evidence if it was believed that violence in video games do increase the likelihood of mass shootings could be 70%. The profile acknowledges the shooters’ diversity across multiple factors, accounting for so much variability, yet still identifying consumption of violent content as a common trend. This report also correctly identifies the shooter’s tendency to provide information prior to the crime which four out of five shooters do, even as late as 2018 according to a secret service report written by Lina Alathari and others.
The probability of observing this evidence if it was believed that violence in video games do not affect the likelihood of mass shootings could be 20%. As school shootings were becoming an increasingly common occurrence, the FBI was under a lot of pressure to make a statement identifying common attributes among school shooters. As a result, the report makes more than a few disclaimers, suggesting they too doubted the predictive ability of their own profile.
Having assumed the probability of the claim being true (i.e. violence in video games do increase the likelihood of mass shootings) is equal to the probability that the claim is false (i.e. violence in video games do not affect the likelihood of mass shootings), the evidence provided by the FBI clarifies this belief. The likelihood ratio becomes 0.7/0.2 = 3.5 which is the probability of observing the FBI evidence and the claim being true to the probability of observing the FBI evidence and the claim being false. The updated odds for the claim being true is then (0.5/0.5) * 0.7/0.2 = 3.5. The new probability of the claim being true is thus 3.5/(1+3.5) = 0.777 and the new probability of the claim being false is 1 - 0.777 = 0.222.
The Role of Mental Health and Video Games in Youth Aggression
Mental illness, like violent video game exposure, is also regarded as a supposed risk factor for aggression and violence. Dr. Ferguson then thought to explore how playing violent video games would affect mental health in adolescents. Pooling data from 101 peer-reviewed studies, Ferguson compiled the perceived effects on aggressive behavior, prosocial behavior, academic performance, depressive symptoms and attention deficit symptoms of the various participants. With samples using typical community adolescents, he found the influence of video games to be negligible, citing values too small to assume causation. As for individuals with preexisting mental health symptoms, he found similarly little effect from violent video game exposure. This study was published in the Perspectives in Psychological Science in 2015.
The probability of observing this evidence given that violence in video games do increase the likelihood mass shootings is 30%. Having combed through many of the already limited number of studies on the subject, Ferguson summarizes that many find little to no significant link between the two. Furthermore, Ferguson also sought to study adolescents given that many of the already existing statistics use college-age young adults in their study groups despite adolescents also being a probable consumer of violent video game content.
The probability of observing this evidence given that violence in video games do not affect the likelihood of mass shootings is 60%. This study was extensive in its scope by creating models from data across 101 of our available studies. In addition to testing for multiple risk factors like social behavior and mental illness, with its large effect size, the findings of this study are joined by the findings of the other studies Ferguson referenced.
After updating the probability of the claim being true with the evidence from the FBI’s investigative profiling, p(increase the likelihood) = .0.777 and p(not affect the likelihood) = 0.222. The likelihood ratio of the Ferguson evidence is 0.3/0.6 = 0.5, which is the probability of observing Ferguson’s evidence and the claim being true to the probability of observing Ferguson’s evidence and the claim being false. The new odds of video games increasing the likelihood of shootings is then 0.777 * 0.3/0.6 = 0.388. The new probability of the claim being true is 0.388/(1+0.388) = 0.279 and the new probability of the claim being false is 1 - 0.279 = 0.721.
Comparative Analysis: Video Games Versus Other Aggression Factors
DeCamp et al. (2016) published a study which compared the effect of exposure to violent video games to other factors that could explain increased levels of aggression. The study examines this using a large and diverse sample of youth. They monitored their response to violent video gameplay and found a small, but statistically significant relationship between violent games and violence-related outcomes. However, upon factoring in social and family backgrounds in particular, the previously positive relationship between violent games and violence-related outcomes vanished, became inverse or was reduced to a merely trivial effect. Their findings lead us to believe video game violence is not a strong enough predictor of youth violence and our efforts are best directed towards more influential factors. This study was published in the Journal of Youth and Adolescence and accessed through PubMed.
The probability of observing this evidence given that violence in video games increase the likelihood of mass shootings is 40%. By first observing the relationship between consumption of violent video games and violence-related outcomes, DeCamp found a statistically significant enough correlation. That said, upon factoring more influential predictors, this correlation is deemed lacking in comparison to social and family backgrounds through which the researchers had more success in using to predict violence-related outcomes in the youth they tested.
The probability of observing this evidence given that violence in video games do not affect the likelihood of mass shootings is 70%. DeCamp’s study takes violent video game exposure into account however in the context of many other aspects that factor into a shooter’s background. Remarkably, a relationship between the two variables would not at all have been determined in this context. DeCamp also conducted a meta-analysis using data from other journal articles to find that these were also supportive of the same null or trivial and non-significant effect on youth violence from playing violent video games.
The probability that the claim is true with the FBI’s profiling and the Ferguson study determined p(increase the likelihood of mass shootings) = 0.279 and p(not affect the likelihood of mass shootings) = 0.721. The likelihood ratio for the new DeCamp evidence is 0.4/0.7 = 0.571. This refers to the probability of observing DeCamp’s evidence and the claim being true (i.e. violence in video games do increase the likelihood of mass shootings) to the probability of observing DeCamp’s evidence and the claim being false (i.e. violence in video games do not affect the likelihood of mass shootings). The updated odds of violence increasing the likelihood of mass shootings is then 0.279/0.721 * 0.4/0.7 = 0.221. The new probability of the claim being true is 0.221/(1+0.221) = 0.180 and the new probability of the claim being false is 1- 0.180 = 0.82.
Garbarino and his colleagues (2002) explored the extent through which violence in media, including in the form of video games, influenced gun violence in youth. Referencing Lt. Col. Dave Grossman, a professor of military science at Arkansas State University, the study acknowledges the potential for video games to be used as effective tools in training people to use firearms. Grossman likened his experience with using first-person shooters (FPS), which allows the player to fire a lifelike digital gun at human forms in the game, to an inadvertent crash course on ‘how to kill.’ Garbarino corroborated his experience by citing how U.S. military has moved towards training targets like the simulated human forms in video games like Doom, Area 51 and GoldenEye 007 to name a few. He also recalls the 1998 shooting in Paducah, Kentucky where a fourteen-year-old with only a day’s worth of shooting practice fired eight shots at eight people. This section of Garbarino’s study uses qualitative data in the form of expert opinion and examples to suggest how instead of motivating the shooter, certain video games might even improve on their ability to shoot and thus, kill. This study was published in the journal The Future of Children and found through PubMed.
The probability of observing this evidence given that violence in video games increase the likelihood of mass shootings is 55%. By looking at the instances where the shooter’s accuracy improved, the Garbarino study realizes the potential of first-person shooters in recreating and thereby ‘training’ for the experience. That said, the study is limited to mostly qualitative data and is not as conclusive as it may appear.
The probability of observing this evidence given that violence in video games do not affect the likelihood of mass shootings is 20%. While the study acknowledges room for variability in effect, the U.S. military’s adoption of simulated targets continually reaffirms a video game feature prominent in violent video games for its ability to stimulate the senses and work towards shorter response times.
After updating the probability that the claim is true with the FBI, Ferguson, and DeCamp reports, p(increase the likelihood of mass shootings) = 0.180 and p(do not affect the likelihood of mass shootings) = 0.82. The likelihood ratio for the Garbarino evidence is 0.55/0.2 = 2.75, which is the probability of observing Garbarino’s evidence and the claim being true (i.e. violence in video games increase the likelihood of mass shootings) to the probability of observing Garbarino’s evidence and the claim being false (i.e. violence in video games do not affect the likelihood of mass shootings). The new odds of violence in video games increasing the likelihood of mass shootings is then 0.180/0.82 * 0.55/0.2 = 0.603. The new probability of the claim being true is 0.603/(1+0.603) = 0.376 and the probability of the claim being false is 1 - 0.376 = 0.624.
Concluding Remarks: The Need for More Conclusive Research
Altogether, these investigative reports and journal-published studies confirm what many researchers have already expressed. For the increasing number of studies attempting to define or illustrate the relationship between violent video game use and violence that manifests as extremely as mass shootings, the evidence is simply not strong enough to support this relationship as direct and positive. This research has determined a general effect of increased aggression in response to violent video game exposure, however, the effect is minimal and not easily reproducible in every setting. Regardless, some evidence persists in drawing politicians to cite and researchers to continue studying the link between violence in video games and mass shootings. The presence of both studies supporting and disproving the claim asserts the need for more conclusive results. This research needs to be clarified but also made more accessible to a wider audience so consumers and lawmakers alike can make more informed decisions from the best data available to us for the time being.
References
National Threat Assessment Center (2019). Mass Attacks in Public Spaces - 2018. U.S. Secret Service, Department of Homeland Security.
Ruggles, Kelly V., and Sonali Rajan. “Gun Possession among American Youth: A Discovery-Based Approach to Understand Gun Violence.” PLoS ONE, vol. 9, no. 11, 2014, doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0111893.
Appelbaum PS. Public Safety, Mental Disorders, and Guns . JAMA Psychiatry. 2013;70(6):565–566. doi:10.1001/jamapsychiatry.2013.315
Liu, Y., Teng, Z., Lan, H., Zhang, X., & Yao, D. (2015). Short-term effects of prosocial video games on aggression: an event-related potential study. Frontiers in behavioral neuroscience, 9, 193. doi:10.3389/fnbeh.2015.00193
Ferguson, Christopher J. “The School Shooting/Violent Video Game Link: Causal Relationship or Moral Panic?” Journal of Investigative Psychology and Offender Profiling, vol. 5, no. 1-2, 2008, pp. 25–37., doi:10.1002/jip.76.
Decamp, Whitney, and Christopher J. Ferguson. “The Impact of Degree of Exposure to Violent Video Games, Family Background, and Other Factors on Youth Violence.” Journal of Youth and Adolescence, vol. 46, no. 2, 2016, pp. 388–400., doi:10.1007/s10964-016-0561-8.
Delisi, Matt & Vaughn, Michael & Gentile, Douglas & Anderson, Craig & Shook, Jeffrey. (2013). Violent Video Games, Delinquency, and Youth Violence New Evidence. Youth Violence and Juvenile Justice. 11. 132-142. 10.1177/1541204012460874.
Garbarino, James, et al. “Mitigating the Effects of Gun Violence on Children and Youth.” The Future of Children, vol. 12, no. 2, 2002, p. 72., doi:10.2307/1602739.
Ferguson, Christopher J. “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.” Perspectives on Psychological Science, vol. 10, no. 5, 2015, pp. 646–666., doi:10.1177/1745691615592234.
Anderson, Craig A., and Brad J. Bushman. “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.” PsycEXTRA Dataset, doi:10.1037/e315012004-001.
Kwon, R., Cabrera, J.F. Income inequality and mass shootings in the United States. BMC Public Health 19, 1147 (2019) doi:10.1186/s12889-019-7490-x