Today, the prevalence of video gaming is undeniable. Alongside this widespread growth of video gaming has sprouted the debate of whether video gaming is beneficial or detrimental to our futures, in particular the futures of our youth who have grown up with them. As video games are played more and more by the youth of today, the debate grows of importance at the same rate, as games continue to make up a substantial segment of our childhood, the foundation of our future. There are some commentators and researchers that believe video games are, at best, a waste of time, whereas others contend video games can be a useful tool in youth development. This paper argues that video gaming can have a positive impact if the amount of time and the types of games played is controlled.
The first of the positive impacts video gaming can have on youth is its stimulation of the creative “muscle”. Like most things, creativity can be improved through practice. In Jackson et al’s experiment (2011) where creativity was measured in 12 year olds before and after playing video games of different kinds, they found that no matter how creativity was quantified, the children showed an overall increase in creativity. What’s more is that “there were no gender differences…nor were there race differences” in the effect of video game playing on creativity, despite variations in game playing ability and style.
Another reported positive impact of video gaming on young people is their seemingly unbounded freedoms, allowing young people to explore their identities when identities are most volatile. A particular, and perhaps important, example of identity development is depicted in Beavis and Charles’s study (2007) of female gamers. The study outlines how the common idea of gender as binary can be challenged in game, via character creation and action. The opposition of gender stereotypes also occurs in real-life. For example, a female holds a game controller and does what is typically described as a male activity, especially games like Starcraft, a male dominated game that the girls of the study played.
The high levels of engagement that video games offer can be used to more effectively interest children in necessary schoolwork. The development of literacy skills is a huge part, arguably the most important part, of a child’s education. However, before a child is able to sit down and read a book unassisted, learning and then improving their reading skills can be tedious. Video games, in particular MMORPG’s with text-based communication, can provide a fun context in which to learn how to read and write. This is because doing so is necessary in order to progress in the game. Moreover, video games can compel children to write offline. The popularity of fan-fiction, fiction stories written by fans that coincide with the storyline or lore of the game, has increased drastically. (Black & Steinkuehler, 2009).
Despite the numerous studies that position gaming in a positive light, there are also several that examine the potential pitfalls of video games; the first of which is increased aggression and decreased prosocial behaviour due to violent content in games. Violent video games have, in some studies, caused an increase in aggressive behaviour. They were said to have affected mechanisms relating to long-term development of personality (Anderson & Bushman, 2001). This is due to the association of the player with an aggressive protagonist. While partaking in the violence of the game, the player is also forced to suppress their emotions to progress in the game by killing an enemy, which results in decreased prosocial behaviour. However, since this study was published, other studies have reported that there are no long-term effects – though short-term effects were found (Szycik G.R, Mohammadi B, Münte T.F and te Wildt B.T, 2017).
The generally positive freedoms to explore one’s identity in video games can often be overshadowed by the motives for action coded into the game itself, potentially causing the adoption of certain negative values by the player. Mature-rated, risk-glorifying (MRRG) games can influence the values of the player undesirably, especially those of the highly impressionable youth. Some MRRG games have been shown to increase alcohol abuse, cigarette smoking, delinquency and other forms of rebelliousness. This tends to be because these games “encourage identification with a deviant protagonist” who adopts these behaviours in-game, therefore by mere association bias can influence the player’s behaviour (Hull et al, 2014). Both the effects and the process of creating these effects are very closely related to the resulting heightened aggression violent video games can cause pointed out earlier.
While the adjective “engaging” usually carries positive connotations, in the context of video games, too much engagement can become problematic. Video game addiction, though not yet recognised in the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, is nonetheless a concern of parents whose children are growing up with video games. Overexposure to video games can cause epileptic seizures, decreases in prosocial behaviour (no matter the game type) and general social dysfunction (Khan, 2007), all of which do not contribute to a healthy and happy lifestyle. Not to mention the time that is spent gaming cannot be spent on other life-enhancing activities such as studying or exercising.
Despite the potential negative consequences of video gaming on young people, I still believe they can provide opportunities for growth. In fact, these opportunities can have massive potential for the future of today’s digital generation and therefore the future of society.
The essence of unlocking creativity is in the simultaneous freedoms and restrictions on the player, forcing one to discover unique solutions to problems. Video games provide both the freedoms and restrictions. The game landscape can also be changed dramatically to further challenge the player and therefore continually assist their growth. Conversely, it is impossible to change the laws of physics in a real-life scenario. Hence, video games are a great platform for the improvement of creativity. The amalgamation of video games’ creativity imbuing quality and high potential for engagement could make video games a doubly effective part of a child’s formal education in the future. Furthermore, as the economy shifts from industry-based to “knowledge based”, creativity will become increasingly important, only elevating the importance of creativity training in formal education.
However, video games only increase creativity to an extent. It was found that one hour of video gaming a week was sufficient to enhance the creative and cognitive processing power of the brain. Any time greater than two hours a week has no positive effect, instead it has a linearly negative effect on socialisation (Pujol et al, 2016). It seems that in order to best enable the digital generation we ought to limit their time on these games, particularly from a cognitive enhancement stand point. Limiting time on video games also makes it harder for children to become addicted, which otherwise remains on the list of negative impacts associated with high volume consumption of video games. Replacing the time that would have been spent gaming with sport, socialising with friends or studying seems a beneficial substitution for both the individual and society in the long run.
Most parents are afraid their children will acquire the aggressive and violent qualities portrayed by the protagonist of MRRG games. A time limit seems just as suitable a response here as it is in the stifling of the aforementioned detriments. Teenagers, or any player of a mature enough age, should be allowed the freedom to enjoy the game mechanics, regardless of the violence. Anecdotally, when I’ve played first-person-shooter games, the goal is not to kill the opposition, but rather to beat them. Looking at it this way, a violent game is no different to a competitive sport. There is still a risk, however, that the violence witnessed, even with non-violent motives, can be conditioned into the player’s mind by over exposure; hence, time-limiting should be the initial response to overcoming this damaging consequence of violent video games too. Another way to minimise risk, is to adhere to the game maturity rating system so as not to prematurely (and indirectly) teach lessons of violence in a context that does little in the sphere of moral values. Violence and related topics should be taught to children directly with a very clear moral focus. Perhaps future game designers will apply some sort of moralistic framework to these games, but for now, engagement is the most economically rewarding, and therefore remains the key performance indicator for games.
To conclude, I believe video games can be a positive component of childhood if the games are largely non-violent and the playing time is limited. Using the maturity rating system appropriately is a sensible way of gauging the types of games that should be played. The optimum playing time has been estimated at 1-2 hours/week, so trying to stick within this range, especially with regard to violent video games is the surest way to fully realise the massive educational and societal potential video games in general can offer. These observations and arguments about how and why video games can have a positive influence on young people are based off research and evidence on current or past video games. However, a significant part of what determines whether or not video games are good or bad for the youth of today are the games themselves, not the way they are interpreted or played. Naturally though, these games will evolve; hopefully with a moral focus and with the psychological and social health of the child as the primary focus.
References:
Anderson, C. A, & Bushman, B. J. (2001). 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. Psychological Science, 12, 353–359.
Beavis, C & Charles, C. (2007). Would the ‘real’ girl gamer please stand up? Gender, LAN cafés and the reformulation of the ‘girl’ gamer, Gender and Education, 19:6, 691-705, doi: 10.1080/09540250701650615
Black, R. W, and Steinkuehler, C. (2009). Literacy in virtual worlds. In L. Christenbury, R. Bomer, & P. Smargorinsky (Eds.), Handbook of adolescent literacy research (pp. 271-286). New York: Guilford
Hull, J. G., Brunelle, T. J., Prescott, A. T., & Sargent, J. D. (2014). A Longitudinal Study of Risk-Glorifying Video Games and Behavioral Deviance. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 107(2), 300–325. http://doi.org/10.1037/a0036058
Jackson, L.A, et al. (2011). Information technology use and creativity: Findings from the Children and Technology Project. Computers in Human Behavior, doi: 10.1016/j.chb.2011.10.006
Khan, M.K. (2007). Emotional and Behavioral Effects, Including Addictive Potential, of Video Games. CSAPH Report 12-A-07. Retrieved from https://psychcentral.com/blog/images/csaph12a07.pdf
Pujol, J., Fenoll, R., Forns, J., Harrison, B. J., Martínez-Vilavella, G., Macià, D., Alvarez-Pedrerol, M., Blanco-Hinojo, L., González-Ortiz, S., Deus, J. and Sunyer, J. (2016), Video gaming in school children: How much is enough?. Ann Neurol., 80: 424–433. doi:10.1002/ana.24745
Szycik, G.R, Mohammadi, B, Münte, T.F and te Wildt BT (2017) Lack of Evidence That Neural Empathic Responses Are Blunted in Excessive Users of Violent Video Games: An fMRI Study. Front. Psychol. 8:174. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2017.00174
