First Amendment Studies
ISSN: 2168-9725 (Print) 2168-9733 (Online) Journal homepage: www.tandfonline.com/journals/rfsy20
Public Opinion Regarding the Role of Government in
Regulating Violent Content in Video Games
Helen Wolf & Juliet Dee
To cite this article: Helen Wolf & Juliet Dee (2013) Public Opinion Regarding the Role of
Government in Regulating Violent Content in Video Games, First Amendment Studies, 47:2,
170-197, DOI: 10.1080/21689725.2013.852795
To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/21689725.2013.852795
Published online: 22 Nov 2013.
Submit your article to this journal
Article views: 1300
View related articles
Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at
https://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=rfsy21
First Amendment Studies, 2013
Vol. 47, No. 2, 170–197, http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/21689725.2013.852795
Public Opinion Regarding the Role of
Government in Regulating Violent
Content in Video Games
Helen Wolf and Juliet Dee
The First Amendment to the Constitution guarantees free speech except in the most
extreme cases. Video games are correctly labeled as “speech,” but numerous psychological
studies suggest that playing these games leads to an increase in addictive and aggressive
behaviors. Because of this, experts are divided as to whether or not video games should
be legally censored. Our research has sought to determine the attitudes of the general
public regarding whether legal restrictions on game content are advisable. This project
involved a survey of 350 adult gamers who responded to questions about violent content
and video game ratings. We analyzed the attitudes of gamers toward violence in video
games and whether or not they believe that the effects of video games can trigger violence
in real life. This study also analyzed various options for state and federal legislators to
increase the restrictions on retail sales of violent video games to minors through the use
of the video game rating system. Finally, we concluded that it is not the government’s
role to restrict the access of minors to video games. It is the parents’ job to monitor their
children’s gaming habits.
Keywords: Violent Media Content; Video Games; First Amendment; Government
Regulation
Introduction
Video games comprise one of the most popular forms of entertainment produced
in the United States and throughout the world. Not all video games are considered
Helen Wolf is currently working as a contracts specialist with AAI Corporation in Hunt Valley, Maryland.
She received her J.D. degree from the University of Maryland Francis King Carey School of Law in 2013,
and her bachelor’s degree from the Communication Department of the University of Delaware in 2010.
Juliet Dee, Ph.D. is an associate professor in the Department of Communication at the University of
Delaware. Correspondence may be addressed to both authors at the Department of Communication,
University of Delaware, Newark, Delaware 19716.
Ó 2013 National Communication Association
Regulating Violent Content in Video Games
171
appropriate, however. Along with their popularity come concerns about the
graphic nature of the sex and violence portrayed in certain video games. Some
members of Congress believe that video games have become too grotesquely
violent and so they push for censorship. Others say that the First Amendment bars
interference in the industry. Almost all attempted legislative restrictions on violent
content have failed; thus, precedent dictates that video game manufacturers have
the right to create games with extremely graphic sex and violence. On the other
hand, psychological research shows that playing violent video games can have
negative effects on children’s attitudes and behavior. Thus, certain lawmakers and
citizens’ groups continue to push for restrictions on violent content.
45
40
Percentages
35
30
25
Yes
20
No
15
10
5
0
0-5
6+
Hours per week
Figure 1 [was Table 1] Graph of hours per week and reaction time improvement.
Figure 1 indicates that, of the respondents who played video games 5 hours per week
or less, 42.5% reported that playing video games had improved their reaction times.
Of the players who played video games 6 hours per week or more, 19.3% reported
that playing video games had improved their reaction times.
60
Percentages
50
40
Not at all
30
Yes
20
10
0
0-5
6+
Hours per week
Figure 2 [Table 2] Graph of hours per week and reported social network expansion.
Figure 2 indicates that, for respondents who played video games 5 hours per week or
less, 49.7% reported that playing video games had expanded their social network; of
the respondents who played 6 hours per week or more, 18.2% reported that playing
video games had expanded their social network.
172
H. Wolf and J. Dee
70
Percentages
60
50
40
Yes
30
No
20
10
0
0-5
6+
Hours per week
Figure 3 [was Table 4] Graph of hours per week and perception of government
regulation. Figure 3 indicates that, for respondents who played video games five hours
per week or less, 20.7% answered that the government needs to regulate violent
content in video games, and 58.9% answered that the government should not regulate
violent content in video games. Of the respondents who played 6 hours per week or
more, 1.9% answered that the government should regulate violent content in video
games, and 18.5% answered that the government should not regulate violent content
in video games.
40
35
Percentages
30
25
Yes
20
No
I'm not sure
15
10
5
0
Small
Moderate-large
Effects on violence in real life
Figure 4 [was Table 7] Graph of effects on real-life violence and whether victims of
imitated violence can successfully sue video game manufacturers. Figure 4 indicates
the number of respondents who believed that video game violence has either “small”
or “moderate-to-large” effects on violence in real life, correlated with whether or not
victims of copycat violence should be able to successfully sue video game
manufacturers. Of the respondents who believed that video game violence has only
“small” effects on violence in real life, 0.6% said that victims of copycat violence
should successfully sue video game manufacturers, 26.1% said that victims should not
successfully sue, and 9.6% said that they were not sure. Of the respondents who
believed that video game violence has moderate-to-large effects in real life, 6.4% said
that victims of video games should be able to successfully sue video game
manufacturers, 33.8% said that they should not successfully sue, and 23.6% were not
sure.
Regulating Violent Content in Video Games
173
50
45
Percentages
40
35
30
Yes
25
No
20
15
10
5
0
Male
Female
Gender
Figure 5 [was Table 8] Graph showing gender support for the ratings system. Figure 5
indicates that a greater percentage of women than men supported the video game rating
system.
40
35
Percentages
30
25
Yes
20
No
I'm Not Sure
15
10
5
0
Male
Female
Gender
Figure 6 [was Table 9] Graph of gender and victim’s ability to sue. Figure 6 indicates
that, although a slightly higher percentage of women than men responded that victims
of copycat violence should be able to successfully sue video game manufacturers, a far
greater percentage of women than men responded that they were “not sure;”
furthermore, the percentage of men and women who responded that victims should not
be able to successfully sue video game manufacturers was nearly equal.
Research Hypotheses
The purpose of this study was to determine the extent to which members of the
general public believe that violent content in video games can instigate copycat
violence in real life, and the extent to which members of public believe that
government censorship of violent content and judicial sanctions would be
acceptable and necessary. The study was designed to answer four research
hypotheses, which are as follows:
174
H. Wolf and J. Dee
H1: The more frequently people play video games, the more sympathetic they
will be with video game manufacturers.
H2: People who believe that video game violence instigates violence in real life
will also believe that government censorship of violent content in video games is
necessary.
H3: People who believe that video game violence instigates violence in real life
will also believe that victims of copycat violence should be able to successfully
sue video game manufacturers for damages.
H4: Women will be more sympathetic toward victims of copycat violence than
will men.
Review of Literature
In May 1972, Magnavox released the Odyssey, a gaming system on which games
like Pong could be played. As games became more complex, video game makers
imitated the trend among Hollywood movie and television producers to use
violence to drive their story lines, rarely showing the consequences of violent
actions.
Negative Effects of Video Game Violence
When Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 2 was released in 2009, it broke records for
entertainment releases, beating some of the most popular movies and music
releases in recent years. Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 2 grossed an estimated $550
million in five days.1 Clearly, violent content sells video games.
Although educational video games can have positive effects on children,2 most
of the games that children play are not educational. Children and teenagers prefer
violent video games to all other genres.3 Craig Anderson argues that, because players take an active role in video games, this active role “could make violent video
games even more hazardous than violent television or cinema.”4
There has been extensive research on the growth of the brain during adolescence. Dr. Ronald Dahl explains that the way in which the brain develops during
adolescence creates a “potential for dys-synchrony.”5 This dys-synchrony leads
adolescents to seek sensation-based experiences, including a “natural increase in
tendencies toward risk taking, sensation seeking, and some emotional/motivational
changes during [puberty].”6 Adolescence is the time when “morbidity and mortality rates increase 200%.”7 The tendency for adolescents to seek intense experiences
due to psychological dys-synchrony can result in accidents, suicide, homicide,
depression, alcohol and substance abuse, and health problems related to risky
behaviors that lead to the deaths of many teenagers.8 Eventually, “the teenage
brain fine-tunes its … pre-frontal cortex, the place that helps us cast a wary eye,
link cause to effect, decide ‘maybe not,’” but this often does not occur until
adulthood.9
Regulating Violent Content in Video Games
175
There is also some evidence that the adolescent brain is not fully developed;
thus, playing violent video games may affect teenage boys differently than playing
the same violent games would affect adult men. Dahl explains that in some adolescents the “inclinations toward high-intensity feelings can lead to impulsive decisions by (seemingly) intelligent youth that are completely outrageous.”10 Medical
researchers have used positron emission tomography (PET scans) to observe video
game players and found that game playing resulted in the “release of dopamine, a
neurotransmitter believed to be involved in … reinforcement of behavior.”11 The
problem, of course, is that reinforcement of the behavior in violent video games
could result in negative or aggressive behavior among teenage boys.
Furthermore, youthful memories can cause a physical change in an individual’s
brain. Thus, whether children are learning in a classroom or engaging in a firstperson shooter game, children’s actions become embedded in their physical memories.12 Playing video games during the period of brain development can imprint
the memories of those actions into the brain so that those actions can be recalled
easily. In other words, the teenager’s actions during a first-person shooter game
are imprinted in memory so that they are easily recalled and can be transferred to
the real world.
Ten years ago the American Academy of Pediatrics reported to a Congressional
Public Health Summit, summarizing the findings of more than 1,000 studies that
“point overwhelmingly to a causal connection between media violence and aggressive behavior in some children.”13 Exposure to violence leads to desensitization
toward violence in real life, and creates the perception that the world is a violent
place; thus, it is necessary to use violence to resolve conflicts.14
In addition to desensitization, researchers also point to cognitive priming theory: “The aggressive ideas in violent films can activate other aggressive thoughts in
viewers through their association in memory pathways. When one thought is activated, other thoughts that are strongly connected are also activated.”15 Related
theories include full-fledged imitation, emulation, response priming and stimulus
enhancement.16 These theories suggest that viewing certain violent actions creates
a specific, trained response in the viewer. Taken together, these theories help
support the medical community’s conclusion that there is a causal link between
playing aggressive video games and potentially acting them out in real life.17
One video game that has drawn the attention of video game players and
researchers alike is the series Grand Theft Auto. Legal scholar Timothy Dylan
Reeves describes Grand Theft Auto as providing a way for people to “live out their
sociopathic fantasies through random acts of senseless violence.”18 Grand Theft
Auto is a “third-person-shooter” game as opposed to a “first-person shooter
game.” In a “first-person-shooter” game, the player sees only the gun as if he were
holding it in his own hand. In a third person-shooter game the player sees the
entire character. Researchers Chad Mahood and Mike Yao found that the students
who played Grand Theft Auto 3 had more aggressive thoughts than those who
played Gran Turismo 3.19 In another research study in which they had 64 college
students play Grand Theft Auto 3, Mahood and Yao found that students who
176
H. Wolf and J. Dee
watched a scene in which police officers are killed had less favorable perceptions
of police officers than students who watched a scene in which police officers were
not killed.20 In other words, the video clips “primed” the students to think
negatively about the police.
Researchers Karen Dill et al. have also found that teenage boys who played Grand
Theft Auto were “more likely to show acceptance of demeaning conceptions of
women and insensitivity to the harm produced by rape.”21 Even more disturbing
than Grand Theft Auto is the video game Super Columbine Massacre RPG! In this
video game, players take on the roles of Eric Harris and Dylan Klebold, entering
Columbine High School, planting bombs, and murdering students and teachers.22
Even if adolescents are not physically acting out aggressive impulses, violent
video games may encourage cyberbullying. For example, researchers Lawrence
Lam et al. found that, in a survey of 1,250 adolescents, “exposure to violent online
games was associated with being a perpetrator as well as a perpetrator-and-victim
of cyberbullying.”23
Researcher Jih-Hsuan Lin found that male college students who played video
games with violent content “(mediated enactive experience) experienced greater
increases in aggressive affect, aggressive cognition, and physiological arousal than
participants who watched recorded game play or comparable movie scenes (mediated observational experience).”24
Researchers Youssef Hasan et al. found that male college students who played
violent video games over three consecutive days were more likely to blast a confederate with a loud unpleasant noise through headphones than who played nonviolent video games. Hasan et al. also found that “aggressive behavior and hostile
expectations increased over days for violent game players, but not for non-violent
video game players.”25
Researchers Matt DeLisi et al. found that among boys in a juvenile detention
center, playing violent video games was associated with anti-social behavior, and
this correlation remained strong even after the researchers controlled for other
variables such as delinquency history and psychopathic personality traits.26
Whereas scholars such as Mahood and Yao, Dill, Lin, Hasan, and DeLisi have
raised concerns that playing violent video games can trigger aggressive behavior in
real life, other scholars are also concerned that video games may reinforce negative
stereotypes of different ethnic groups. Researchers Melinda Burgess et al. conducted
a series of content analyses of video games and observed that “[w]hites are heroic
fighters, fighting to save an often romanticized world (Star Wars, Final Fantasy X),
or realistic war heroes saving nothing less than Western Civilization itself (D-Day,
Brothers in Arms), whereas black characters were too often the menace to society
with oversized weapons and gang posturing (Grand Theft Auto: San Andreas, 25 to
Life), whereas Asian characters simply engage in martial arts, threatening no one but
each other, and saving no one (Shen-mue, Onimusha Blade Warriors).”27
Regulating Violent Content in Video Games
177
Crime Statistics Decreasing
On the other hand, video game manufacturers insist that their games have not
had any impact on the rate of violent crime in the United States. Indeed, they
argue that the rate of violent crime has decreased since the advent of modern gaming systems. The Bureau of Justice Statistics supports this claim, stating on its
Website that the rate of violent crimes (rape, robbery, aggravated assault, and
homicide) has decreased since 1993. The National Crime Victimization Survey
reported that violent crimes in the United States have decreased from approximately 3.4 million cases in 1990 to 2.1 million cases in 2000 to 1.6 million cases
in 2007 to 1.4 million in 2011.28
Positive Effects of Playing Video Games
In addition to video game manufacturers’ argument that it is wrong to blame violent content in video games for violence in real life, there is also research showing
positive effects on children and young adults from playing video games. For example, communication researchers Dimitri Willams, Scott Caplan, and Li Xiong have
observed that massive multi-player online (MMO) games can actually have very
positive effects on the players in the sense that they become part of a virtual community in which “teenagers and elders, housewives and construction workers, rich
and poor” can “talk” with one another online.29
And video game developer Jane McGonigal observes that game developers know
better than anyone else how to inspire extreme effort and reward hard work. They
know how to facilitate cooperation and collaboration at previously unimaginable
scales. And they are continuously innovating new ways to motivate players to stick
with harder challenges, for longer, and in much bigger groups … I foresee games
that treat depression, obesity, anxiety and attention deficit disorder … I foresee
games that tackle global-scale problems like climate change and poverty.30
Litigation Involving Video Games
Although psychological research has suggested that video games can prime
aggressive thoughts among gamers, the courts have consistently upheld the First
Amendment rights of video game manufacturers, in effect holding that there are
few if any limits on graphic sex and violence in video games.
Before video games could be protected under the First Amendment, they had to
be considered “speech.” Litigation over the earliest versions of video games such
as Pacman led to the conclusion that video games did not constitute speech
because they contained “so little in the way of a particularized form of expression.”31 It was not until 2000 that courts actually recognized video games as a
form of protected expression.32 There have also been a number of cases in which
plaintiffs sued video game manufacturers, alleging that violent content in the video
games had instigated cases of copycat violence.33
178
H. Wolf and J. Dee
Another potential judicial path is through exceptions to First Amendment
protection for speech. In order to win a lawsuit against video game manufacturers,
plaintiffs would have to prove that the content of a video game constitutes a form
speech that is not protected. There are certain categories of speech that the First
Amendment does not protect, such as fighting words, obscenity, and incitement.
Most of the legal arguments against the entertainment software industry claim that
certain video games contain obscenity or that they incite players to commit
violence in real life.
Legally, obscenity is difficult to define; the controlling Supreme Court case on
obscenity is Miller v. California (1973).34 The courts have thus far rejected most
arguments that claim that certain video games are obscene. Judges do not find
that the portrayal of sex in most video games constitutes obscenity according to
the Miller v. California test.35
The other argument that plaintiffs make against video game violence is that it
incites violence in real life. The First Amendment protects abstract appeals regarding violence, but does not protect speech that is “directed to inciting or producing
imminent lawless action and is likely to incite or produce such action.”36 In
Brandenburg v. Ohio, the US Supreme Court added the additional requirement of
“intent” to incite violent action and the requirement that the violence must be
imminent in order for a prosecutor to convict a defendant on a charge of incitement. No court has ever held that video games constitute incitement. In James v.
Meow Media37 and Sanders v. Acclaim Entertainment, Inc.,38 the courts ruled in
favor of the video game manufacturers on the grounds that the manufacturers
“obviously did not intend to cause their consumers to commit violent crimes.”39
Legal scholar Timothy Reeves argues that video game manufacturers should be
held liable for instances of copycat violence under the tort of negligent entrustment: “the [video game] manufacturers have a duty to take proper precautions to
prevent real-life violence. A manufacturer breaches that duty when a player
commits a real-life act of violence that is attributable to the video game.”40
Because there is an abundance of psychological research available that suggests that
violent video games present a risk to minors, Reeves argues that video game
manufacturers have a duty to remove the prevailing risk.41 This argument has not
been successful in court, however. Legal scholars Clay Calvert and Robert Richards
caution that to show that video games “cause” real-life violence would be “difficult
to establish because of many intervening and extraneous variables which are
involved.”42
Video Game Ratings
Just as television programs and Hollywood feature films are assigned ratings in
order to warn consumers about violent or sexually explicit content, video games
are assigned ratings as well. In 1994 the Entertainment Software Ratings Board
(ESRB) was established, and since then it has rated all video games according to
their content. Indeed, the only legislation Congress has passed in this area is the
Regulating Violent Content in Video Games
179
requirement that video game manufacturers provide ratings and descriptive explanations for each game they release. Congressman Jim Matheson (D-Utah) sponsored HR 5990, the Video Games Ratings Enforcement Act, the purpose of which
was to “require labels on video games and to prohibit the sales and rentals of
adult-rated video games to minors,”43 but it was not passed into law.
The ratings system consists of six categories, ranging from “early childhood” to
“adults only.” Games rated M for “mature” are considered appropriate for those
aged 17 and older, and games rated AO for “adults only” are suitable only for
those aged 18 and older.44 But “pre-teen and adolescent boys favor violent video
games with the M rating … and minors have no trouble purchasing these games
despite self-imposed industry regulations.”45 Although video game manufacturers
follow ESRB guidelines, there is little enforcement at the retail level, meaning that
minors can buy M and AO-rated games with relative ease when retailers do not
check on their age.
Because of this, some legislators have pushed for further regulations and possibly for censorship of graphic sex and violence in video games. Legislators have
attempted to limit advertising, to require retailers to display M and AO-rated
games separately from other games, and to prohibit access to violent video games
in prisons. The California legislature passed a law in 2005 that would have
imposed $1,000 fines on retailers who sold extremely violent video games to minors; it defined violent video games as those “in which the range of options available to a player includes killing, maiming, dismembering or sexually assaulting an
image of a human being.” The Entertainment Merchants Association immediately
challenged the statute as a violation of their First Amendment rights. The US
Supreme Court struck down the California law as unconstitutional; only Justices
Clarence Thomas and Stephen Breyer dissented; Justice Breyer argued in his dissent that the California statute was constitutional, and he relied on researchers’
studies showing a positive correlation between playing violent video games and
behaving aggressively in real life. Justice Antonin Scalia, writing for the majority,
rejected the idea that portrayals of violence were equivalent to obscenity and
should thus be regulated to limit minors’ access to violent video games.46 It is
worth noting that the majority opinion in Brown v. Entertainment Merchants
Association47 referred to psychological research on violent video games as
“unpersuasive” and noted that such research contains numerous methodological
flaws.48
As a result of Brown v. Entertainment Merchants Association (2011), any government attempt to regulate violent video game content in the future is unlikely. At
present, only the ratings system has been universally accepted. Instead of government interference, the continued self-regulation by the video game industry couple
with parental supervision is more likely to effectively restrict minors’ access to
inappropriate material.
180
H. Wolf and J. Dee
Method
An online questionnaire was created using Qualtrics Survey Software. The online
survey was distributed through the social network Facebook. The lead researcher
created a group and invited all of her “Facebook friends” to join. A link for the
survey was provided, and specific individuals in Virginia, Colorado, California,
New York, and Delaware were asked to distribute the survey; in other words, it
was a convenience sample. The survey was also distributed among students at a
large mid-Atlantic university. There were 411 respondents who began the survey;
of those 411, 345 completed it. Only the 345 completed surveys were counted in
the analysis (N = 345).
There were three sections to the survey: questions about video game play, perceptions of video game violence and how it relates to real life, and demographic
data. The questionnaire is available in the Appendix.
Respondents were asked if they had played video games in the past five years. If
they responded “yes,” they were asked how many hours they played per week.
They were asked whether they thought video games had had positive effects on
them, such as improving their reaction time or expanding their social networks.
Respondents were also asked if they knew the ratings of the video games that
they owned, and if they had bought video games rated M or AO before they were
18 years old. They were also asked if the video game vendors had asked to see
their identification before they bought M- or AO-rated video games.
Questions about Perceptions of Violence in Video Games
Respondents were asked to rate the level of violence in the video games that they
played on a 5-point scale that ranged from “hardly any violence” to “graphically
and disturbingly violent.” Respondents were also asked about their attitudes
toward self-regulation (ratings) and government regulation of video game content.
The last question in this section mentioned court cases involving individuals who
played violent video games and then committed copycat violence in real life.
Respondents were asked if they believed that victims of such copycat violence
should be allowed to file negligence suits against video game manufacturers.
Respondents could answer:
____Yes, they should be allowed to sue to recover damages.
____ No, they should not be allowed to sue to recover damages.
____ I’m not sure; there are valid arguments on both sides.
Demographic Data and Open-Ended Questions
Respondents were asked several demographic questions such as their gender, age,
level of education, religion, and household income. They were also asked whether
Regulating Violent Content in Video Games
181
they had voted for John McCain or Barack Obama in the 2008 Presidential election, in an effort to determine their political leanings.
The final question of the survey was open-ended, asking for any additional
comments the respondent might have. Responses to the questions were run
through SPSS analysis software to determine statistical significance.
Limitations
There are several limitations to this study. The first is the way in which the sample
was selected. The results of this research reflect the opinions gathered in a convenience sample. Although the sample size of 345 respondents is large, it was not a
random sample; thus, it is difficult to know how representative it was of the population as a whole. For example, 56percent of the respondents reported that they
had voted for Barack Obama in the November 2008 Presidential election. Also,
50percent reported that they were in college and 37percent reported attaining a
2-year, 4-year or graduate degree. Thus, the majority of respondents were politically liberal and well-educated.
Another limitation is the fact that surveys in general must rely on self-report. It
is possible that the respondents who spent many hours playing video games were
more sympathetic toward the video game manufacturers, for example.
Results
As is mentioned above, the Statistical Package for the Social Sciences (SPSS)
software was used to analyze the data.
Benefits of Games
Before analyzing respondents’ attitudes toward video game censorship, we felt that
it was necessary to find out if the respondents believed that there are significant
benefits resulting from playing video games. If respondents believed that playing
video games enriched their lives, then it would be necessary to weigh that fact
against how they felt about video game censorship.
To test this, some of the first questions in the survey were about the benefits of
video game play. Respondents were first asked whether they played video games.
If they did, they were asked the approximate number of hours that they played
per week on a scale ranging from 0–1, 2–5, 6–10, 11–15, 16–20, to 21+. To scale
the level of benefit that gaming has had on respondents, the questions were
framed as “Not at all,” “A small amount,” “A moderate amount,” and “A great
deal.” Of the 345 people who took the survey, 322 answered that they have played
video games in the past five years. Therefore, for these questions about benefits,
N = 322.
Of the 322, 199 people saw at least some improvement in their reaction time,
or 61.8 percent of the sample. To calculate the significance for this question, we
182
H. Wolf and J. Dee
Table 1 Hours played per week cross-tabulated
with whether the ratings system is perceived as necessary
Regulations/
ratings?
Hours per week?
Yes
No
Total
0–1
2–5
6–10
11–15
16–20
21 or more
Total
135
37
19
16
3
6
216
51
28
9
5
1
3
97
186
65
28
21
4
9
313
compared the number of people who played 0–5 hours per week with the number
of people who played six hours or more per week. We compared the respondents
in this way because we felt that those who play five hours or less per week are
more casual players, while people who play six hours or more per week are more
serious “gamers.” Splitting the data in this way was an arbitrary decision, without
a scientific basis. Those who played five hours per week or less are referred to as
low level players and those who played six or more hours are referred to as high
level players.
We compared these value sets with people who did not see any improvement in
reaction time against people who saw at least some improvement. High-level players were more likely than low-level players to report an improvement in their
reaction times. Of the high level players, 95.4 percent reported an improvement in
reaction time, whereas only 53.3 percent of low level players reported an
improvement. The difference in the likelihood of reporting an improvement was
significant, v2 (1) = 38.908, p < .001.
The next question asked about whether respondents had noticed an increase in
or expansion of their social network. Using the same distinctions for high and low
level players, we compared the likelihood of reporting an improvement in social
network for both levels. While only 49.7 percent of respondents reported an
improvement in their social network, 31.5 percent of that population consisted of
low level players. 39.5 percent of low level players reported an improvement in
social network, whereas 89.4 percent of high level players reported that
improvement. The difference in the likelihood of reporting an improvement in
social network was significant, v2 (1) = 52.262, p < .001.
These questions regarding benefits of video games were important because they
could help gauge the respondents’ attitudes toward censorship. If respondents
believed that they have benefited from playing video games, then that would be
weighed against their perception of any potential harm that games could cause.
Regulating Violent Content in Video Games
183
Table 2 Evaluation of hours per week and attitudes about whether victims
of imitated violence should be able to sue manufacturers for damages
Pearson chi square
Likelihood ratio
Linear-by-linear association
No. of valid cases
Value
df
Asymp. sig. (2-sided)
17.800
19.426
7.477
315
4
4
1
.001
.001
.006
Note: p < .01.
How Frequently People Play as Related to Desired Levels of Restrictions
H1 claimed that, the more people play video games, the more sympathetic they
would be with manufacturers, meaning they would like to see fewer restrictions,
less government interference, and no liability for manufacturers in the judicial
system. The results did not totally support this hypothesis.
Respondents were first asked about ratings. Whether they played video games
for 0–5 hours or 6 or more hours per week, respondents felt that the ratings
system is necessary (see Table 1). Sixty-nine percent of respondents answered
“yes” when asked if they felt that the ratings system is necessary. The Pearson
chi-square test did not indicate a significant difference between high and low levels
of players, v2 (1) = 0.041, p > .05. This analysis does not support H1.
We then asked respondents about their feelings toward government regulation.
No matter how many hours respondents played per week, the majority responded
that “No, the government should not be involved in regulating video game
content.” In addition, nearly all of the respondents who played an average of 16
hours or more per week felt that the government should not interfere in the video
game industry. The more hours per week that people played video games, the
more likely they were to report that they feel that governmental regulation was
uncalled for. A chi-square test revealed a significant difference in the likelihood of
high level players and low level players reporting that the government should not
regulate the video game industry, v2 (5) = 20.789, p < .01.
Finally, the survey asked respondents whether they felt that video game manufacturers should be held liable in court for cases of copycat violence. This question
added an option of “I’m not sure.” The great majority of respondents felt that
manufacturers should not be held liable in cases of imitated violence. Of the 315
people who responded to both of these questions, 14 said yes, manufacturers
should be held liable, 228 said manufacturers should not be held liable, and 73
said that they were not sure. Of the low level players (0–1 hour for this analysis),
64 percent said that victims should not be allowed to sue manufacturers for
damages. This is compared to 80 percent of medium level players (2–5 hours per
week) and 89 percent of high level players (6+ hours) who did not think that
victims should be able to sue. A Pearson chi-square test of the relationship was
significant, v2 (4) = 17.800, p = .001. In other words, the high level players were
184
H. Wolf and J. Dee
Table 3 Effects on real-life violence cross-tabulated with perception of need for
government regulation of violent content
Congressional
regulations?
How responsible for real-life violent behavior?
Yes
No
Total
A small amount
3
11
23
16
1
54
19
23
43
11
4
100
22
34
66
27
5
154
A moderate amount
A large amount
Total
more likely than low level players to report that victims of imitated violence
should not be able to sue video game manufacturers for damages. Table 2 shows
how the data overwhelmingly favor those who feel that manufacturers are not
liable for cases of copycat violence.
Considering these results, H1 is both supported and unsupported. The majority
of respondents agreed that the ratings system is a valuable mechanism, which does
not support H1. On the other hand, people overwhelmingly felt that the government should not regulate video game content and that victims of copycat violence
should not be able to hold the manufacturers of video games liable for that
violence. High level players were more likely than low level players to report that
they did not think that the government should not be involved and that victims
of imitated violence should not be able to successfully sue for damages.
How Responsible are Video Games for Violence in Real Life?
The next level of analysis that was required for this project was to test H2 and
H3. These claimed:
H2: People who believe that video game violence instigates violence in real life
will also believe that government censorship is necessary.
H3: People who believe that video game violence instigates violence in real life
will also believe that victims of copycat violence should be able to successfully
sue video game manufacturers for damages.
To test these two hypotheses, respondents were first asked how much they felt that
video game violence contributed to violence in real life. Respondents were given a
5-point scale, ranging from “not at all” to “a great deal.”
Most people reported that they felt that the government should not be involved
in video game censorship or regulation. Only 35 percent of respondents reported
feeling that the government should play a role in regulating the video game industry, whereas 65 percent did not. The more people believe that video games instigate violence in real life, the more likely they are to report that the government
Regulating Violent Content in Video Games
185
should have the ability to regulate the industry. A chi-square test of these two
variables revealed that the difference in beliefs about the government’s role is
significant, v2 (1) = 3.915, p < .05. Table 3 shows a positive correlation between
the belief that violent content in video games can instigate violence in real life,
and the belief that the government should regulate violent content in video games.
Next, we found that most people feel that video game manufacturers should not
be held liable in cases of copycat violence. Again, the more people felt that video
game violence can trigger violence in real life, the more likely they were to agree
that video game manufacturers should be held responsible. Seven percent of
respondents felt that video game manufacturers should be held responsible, 60
percent felt that they should not, and 33 percent were unsure, v2 (2) = 6.947,
p < .05. People who agree that violence in video games can trigger violence in real
life were more likely to sympathize with manufacturers in the courtroom than
people who do not think that violence in video games instigates violence in real
life.
These tests show that H2 and H3 are supported. Even though most people lean
in favor of the manufacturers and not in favor of the victims of copycat violence,
people who agree that violence in video games instigates violence in real life are
more likely to believe that the government should be involved and that victims
should be able to sue manufacturers. On the other side, those who did not believe
that violence in video games affects violence in real life were more likely to resist
government involvement and judicial sanctions. Despite this, the majority of
respondents still felt that the manufacturers have the right to produce any video
game content they like.
Gender Sympathy
H4 stated that women would be more sympathetic to victims of copycat violence
than would men. The hypothesis, therefore, claims that women will be more
inclined than men to support the ratings system, government regulation, and judicial sanctions on video game manufacturers. There were 195 women and 143 men
who responded to these questions.
As discussed above, most of the respondents felt that the ratings system is
important. When asked about ratings, 151 women (77.4 percent) believed that the
ratings system is necessary, whereas 87 men (60.8 percent) agreed. Comparatively,
44 women (22.6 percent) and 56 men (39.2 percent) did not think that ratings
were necessary. Women are therefore significantly more inclined than are men to
report that the ratings system is necessary, v2 (1) = 10.908, p = .001. There was a
significant difference between the men’s and women’s attitudes toward video game
ratings.
The next question about video game restrictions asked whether video game
content should be regulated by Congress or the Federal Trade Commission.
Sixty-seven women (34.2 percent) and 14 (9.8 percent) men felt that the
government should be able to regulate video game content. Alternatively, 127
186
H. Wolf and J. Dee
Table 4 Age cross-tabulated with whether respondents tried to purchase an “M” or
“AO” game before they turned 18
Before you were 18, did you ever succeed at
purchasing a video game rated “M” (mature)
or “AO” (adult only)?
Yes
No
Total
Age
18–19
20–21
22–24
25–30
31+
Total
24
6
30
52
9
61
14
3
17
1
0
1
2
0
2
93
18
111
women (64.8 percent) and 129 men (90.2 percent) felt that the government should
not regulate content in the video game industry at all. While most people taking
the survey felt that the government did not have an effective means of regulating
video games, women were more likely than men to agree with government
regulation, v2 (1) = 27.609, p < .001.
The final question regarding federal restrictions on video games dealt with the
role of the courts. H4 also claims that more women than men will be sympathetic
with victims of copycat violence in the judicial system. In support of H4, 11
women felt that victims of copycat violence should be allowed to successfully sue
for damages, whereas only three men agreed. On the other hand, 119 women and
124 men felt that victims should not be allowed to sue for damages. This question
also allowed respondents to answer that they were unsure of the answer. Sixty-six
women and 16 men chose this response. Considering how many more women
than men responded to these questions, there is a significant difference in the
female and male response rate in support of a victim’s ability to sue for damages,
v2 (1) = 27.609, p < .001. More women felt that victims should be allowed to
recover damages in cases of copycat violence.
H4 is supported by all three levels of this analysis.
Do Ratings Work?
It is clear from the survey responses that most people feel that the only restriction
on video games that should be in existence is the ratings system. According to the
respondents, government regulation and judicial sanctions are inappropriate with
regard to the video game industry. We also wanted to determine how successful
the respondents thought the ratings system is in preventing minors from obtaining
video games containing graphic sex and violence. To do this, the survey asked
respondents whether they had ever attempted to purchase a video game rated “M”
or “AO” before the appropriate age. Those who responded yes were then asked if
they were successful in their attempt. Finally, respondents were asked if they had
ever been asked for identification when purchasing a video game.
The first question in this series asked whether respondents had ever tried to
purchase a video game rated “M” or “AO” before they turned 18. Out of 320
Regulating Violent Content in Video Games
187
respondents who answered this question, only 113 (35.3 percent) answered “yes,”
they had tried to purchase video games above their age-appropriate rating.
Respondents who answered yes were then asked if they were successful in purchasing a video game rated “M” or “AO” before they were 18 years old. Ninety-four
(83.1 percent of 113) people answered that they were successful, meaning that they
bought M- or AO-rated games before they were legally permitted to do so.
The ratings system was not implemented, however, until 1994, 18 years ago.
Therefore, respondents who were 33 years old or older could have tried to purchase an inappropriate game before the ratings system was implemented. Table 4
shows that only two of the 93 people who tried to purchase an inappropriate
video game did so before the ratings system went into effect. The other 91 respondents were flouting the federal regulations that required retailers to restrict sales of
video games to minors according to their ratings.
Open-Ended Responses
One of the most illuminating aspects of the survey was the last question. It asked
respondents to record any last comments that they might have about video games
and video game violence. Seventy-seven people chose to leave an extra comment
at the end of the survey. A content analysis of these responses showed some interesting results.
The most common trend in these open-ended responses was the attitude that
parents are the ones that need to take responsibility for their children’s actions.
Twenty-three people mentioned the need for parents to monitor their children’s
gaming habits more carefully. One respondent commented that:
I am an X generation gamer, playing video games for at least 25–30 years (starting with Atari) … I have three children under 10. In my opinion, it is MY
responsibility as a parent to monitor what my children play as far as video
games. Knowing the graphic nature of some of the games … I know first-hand
what these games can do to the minds of children. That being said, it is the sole
responsibility of the PARENTS to ensure that their children are not playing
games that can influence them in a negative manner.
This father feels that the government should not have a role in keeping children
from playing inappropriate video games. He claims, as many of the respondents
did, that it is the parents’ responsibility to watch their children and their children’s
gaming habits. Unfortunately, parents do not always pay attention to the ratings
restrictions. Another respondent told a story of a mother he saw buying inappropriate games for her children:
Once in a GameStop I saw a mother holding three M rated titles to purchase
for her nagging child. This child could not have been older than ten, and the
titles he wanted his mother to buy for him included Grand Theft Auto IV, Halo
3, and Devil May Cry 4 … The rep at the counter asked several times if she was
sure she wanted to purchase these games for her child because of the content
188
H. Wolf and J. Dee
Table 5
Content analysis of open-ended responses
Type of answer
Parent’s responsibility
Natural pre-disposition to violence
It’s the same as violent music or movies
People need to take responsibility for own action
Due to a number of factors
It’s not an issue
Causing desensitization to violence
People need a scapegoat
Do cause violence
I appreciate video games
Video games are not violence for its own sake
Video games should be regulated more closely
Number
23
13
12
9
8
7
5
4
4
4
3
2
and warned her that the games were M for a reason. She ignored all of this and
bought the games anyway.
Twenty-three of the respondents felt strongly enough to write comments about
the need for responsible parenting, but it is clear from this response that parents
are not always going to pay attention to what would be an appropriate game for
their children.
Many respondents wrote that the individual should be held accountable. Nine
respondents mentioned that people should take responsibility for themselves.
Along the same lines, four respondents felt that criminals are using video game
manufacturers as scapegoats for their own violent actions. One such respondent
said:
Sometimes I feel that the people who sue game companies are coerced into
doing so by lawyers who know that those companies have large reserves of
money. They get the child to confess that he/she was influenced by violent
games and then claim the video games are the reason why he/she attacked
people at his/her school. It’s a convenient cop-out for the child and a windfall
of pure profit for the lawyer. Jack Thompson [former lawyer for the Strickland
v. Sony case], a disbarred Florida lawyer, is one example of this type of person
… I believe that the people who claim they were influenced by games to kill
people are full of it.
Many of the respondents felt strongly that parents or the people committing the
acts of violence are the ones who should be held accountable and that they should
not blame video games for their own acts of violence.
Twenty-one respondents believed, however, that video games can affect people’s
behaviors if they have a natural pre-disposition toward violence or if there are
other factors influencing the person’s attitude. For example, one respondent
explained that:
I believe that while violent video games are responsible for making a person more
violently-minded, they are not enough to cause a person to commit an act of violence by themselves. Only when combined with other factors (family issues,
Regulating Violent Content in Video Games
189
drug/alcohol abuse, psychological problems) will the influence of video games be
realized … therefore video game manufacturers cannot be held responsible for an
act that a person committed due to a [combination of factors].
This response reflects what much of the psychological research has already shown.
Many of the people who are predisposed toward violence and violent acts have
come from broken homes, were physically or emotionally abused, or are abusing
drugs and alcohol. Most medical and psychological research supports what this
respondent claims. One of the respondents claimed that he has been playing video
games since “about the age of 7” and then went on to work in the industry for
two years. He acknowledged that video games can be blamed for violence to an
extent. He agreed, however, that those affected by video game violence often have
other issues that need to be considered. A common thread throughout these
open-ended responses is that, when people are affected by video games, it is
because there are other factors involved and it is not just due to the graphic
violence in first-person shooter games.
The content analysis table (Table 5) shows the types of responses that people gave
in the open-ended section. Twelve people felt that video game violence is no different from the violence in movies or on television. One respondent even compared
the violence in video games to wars in his history textbook.49 Seven people felt that
the video game violence controversy is not an actual issue. Of those who responded,
only four believed that video games do cause increased violence in real life and five
commented that video games cause desensitization to violence in real life. Only two
people commented that video games need to be monitored more closely.
Conclusions
Of the 345 respondents who completed this survey, the great majority made it
clear that they believe that the arguments for First Amendment protection
outweigh the arguments for censorship of video games. Most people felt that the
government should not regulate the video game industry any more than it already
does. In addition, respondents believe that victims of copycat violence should
continue to seek redress in places other than the courtroom. Precedent and
popular opinion hold that the First Amendment protects video game content.
Of the four hypotheses for this project, only H1 was not completely supported.
H1 claimed that the more frequently people play video games, the more
sympathetic they will be toward video game manufacturers. Some people felt that
further government regulation and judicial sanctions would be inappropriate, but
the majority of respondents reported feeling that the ratings system that is already
in place is much needed. Because nearly all of the respondents had a favorable
attitude toward the ratings system, H1 is not completely supported. The results of
the survey, however, showed that the ratings system is not a completely reliable
means of restricting minors’ access to M- and AO-rated games. Many of the
respondents revealed that they were able to get by the ratings system and purchase
190
H. Wolf and J. Dee
inappropriate games for themselves when they had been under age. In addition, as
one of the open-ended responses showed, parents do not always acknowledge the
ratings, even when video game vendors attempt to restrict children’s access to graphic sex and violence in M- and AO-rated games.
The results of the survey supported H2 and H3 but not as strongly as was
expected. Even though there were those who felt that video game violence
instigates violence in real life, the overwhelming majority of respondents did
not believe that Congress or the Federal Trade Commission should have any
influence over the video game industry, nor should victims of copycat violence
be able to sue manufacturers for damages. The only restriction with which
most respondents agreed was the ratings system that is already in place and
which has been shown to be flawed in terms of whether retailers and parents
abide by it or not.
H4 is the only hypothesis that is supported as expected. Women were more
sympathetic than men to those who agree with restrictions on the video game
industry. While most women still felt that the First Amendment takes precedence,
there were significantly more women than men who believed that the ratings system should be enforced, that Congress and the Federal Trade Commission should
have an influence in the video game industry, and that manufacturers should be
held liable for cases of copycat violence.
Most of the psychological research indicates that video game violence can have
a negative impact on the cognitive functioning of children; however, the country
is not yet in a place in which it is willing to sacrifice First Amendment protection
for violent video games. Instead, respondents pointed to parents to monitor their
children. The respondents also felt that victims and legislators need to stop
pointing to video games as a scapegoat for the violent acts that very disturbed
individuals commit. Most of the findings of the psychological research suggest
that, though video games affect most players in some way, only those who are
already emotionally disturbed will be likely to re-create that video game violence
in the real world.
Because public opinion, according to this sample, dictates that First Amendment protection for violent content takes precedence over concerns for the cognitive processing of adolescent gamers, a new solution needs to be found.
According to the Federal Trade Commission (FTC), the best way for the industry to be regulated is through self-monitoring. The industry has already begun to
restrict minors’ access to M- and AO-rated video games by continuing to
encourage retailers to abide by the ratings system guidelines. The results of the
FTC “mystery shops” reveal that minors still have high levels of access to inappropriate video games; however, each year the percentage of shoppers who are
able to purchase these games decreases. Public opinion shows that people would
prefer that the video game industry continue to encourage retailers and parents
to comply with the ratings system restrictions than rather than having the government become involved.
Regulating Violent Content in Video Games
191
As is mentioned above, in 2011 the US Supreme Court struck down as unconstitutional the California law prohibiting sales of violent video games to minors.50
Like the majority of US Supreme Court justices, people feel that it is the role of
the parents, and not the legislatures, to make rules about what children are
playing.
Acknowledgment
The authors would like to express their deep gratitude to Dr. Dick Sacher; his
kind and patient guidance in designing the survey questionnaire and his invaluable
assistance with the statistical analysis of the data were crucial to this project.
Notes
[1] PR Newswire, “Call of Duty.”
[2] MacKenzie, “The Brain,” 518.
[3] Garabino et al., “Mitigating the Effects,” 78.
[4] Anderson, “Violent Video Games.”
[5] Dahl, “Adolescent Brain Development,” 16.
[6] Ibid., 7.
[7] Ibid., 3.
[8] Ibid., 8.
[9] Saunders, “A Disconnect,” 710.
[10] Dahl, “Adolescent Brain Development,” 8.
[11] Saunders, “A Disconnect,” 711.
[12] Ibid.
[13] American Academy of Pediatrics, “Joint Statement.”
[14] Grossman and DeGaetano, Stop Teaching Our Kids, 3.
[15] Felson, “Mass Media Effects,” 112.
[16] Hurley, “Imitation, Media Violence,” 167.
[17] American Academy of Pediatrics, “Joint Statement.”
[18] Reeves, “Tort Liability,” 522.
[19] Mahood and Yao, “Violent Video Games,” 19.
[20] Mahood and Yao, “Violence against Police Officers,” 12.
[21] Dill et al., “Violence, Race, Sex and Age,” 107.
[22] For a discussion of Super Columbine Massacre RPG!, see Sicart, The Ethics, 84–5, 100–1.
[23] Lam et al., “Violent Online Games Exposure.”
[24] Lin, “Do Video Games Exert.”
[25] Hasan et al., “The More You Play.”
[26] DeLisi et al., “Violent Video Games.”
[27] Burgess et al., “Playing with Prejudice,” 302–3.
[28] Bureau of Justice Statistics, “Four Measures.”
[29] Williams et al., “Can You Hear Me,” 428.
[30] McGonigal, Reality is Broken, 13–14.
[31] Li, “Unbaking the Adolescent Cake,” 473.
[32] American Amusement Machine Association v. Kendrick, 244 F. 3d 572 at 576 (7th Cir.
2000).
192
H. Wolf and J. Dee
[33]
See James v. Meow Media, 1998 (school shooting in which Michael Carneal murdered
three students); see also Sanders v. Acclaim Entertainment, Inc., 2002 (Columbine High
School massacre in which Eric Harris and Dylan Klebold killed 12 students and a teacher, allegedly influenced by Mortal Kombat and other video games).
Miller v. California, 413 US 15 at 21 (1973).
Li, “Unbaking the Adolescent Cake,” 479.
Brandenburg v. Ohio, 395 US 444 at 448 (1969).
James v. Meow Media, 300 F. 3d 683 (6th Cir. 2002).
Sanders v. Acclaim Entertainment, Inc., 188 F. Supp. 2d 1264 (US District Court, District
of Colorado, filed March 4, 2002).
Li, “Unbaking the Adolescent Cake,” 483.
Reeves, “Tort Liability,” 536.
Ibid.
Calvert and Richards, “Mediated Images of Violence,” 103. See also Calvert and Richards, “The 2003 Legislative Assault.”
Jim Matheson, House Bill 5990, 110th Congress, Second Session (May 7, 2008).
Entertainment Software Ratings Board, “Game Ratings.”
Reeves, “Tort Liability,” 520.
Video Software Dealers Association v. Schwarzenegger, 556 F. 3d 950 (9th Cir. 2009), sub
nom Brown v. Entertainment Merchants Association, 131 S. Ct. 2729 (2011).
Ibid.
For a discussion of the disagreement among psychologists regarding violent video games
and the Supreme Court’s reaction, see Ferguson, “Violent Video Games.”
Anonymous Survey 2009. Results of this survey are on file with the authors.
Brown v. Entertainment Merchants Association, 131 S. Ct. 2729 (2011).
[34]
[35]
[36]
[37]
[38]
[39]
[40]
[41]
[42]
[43]
[44]
[45]
[46]
[47]
[48]
[49]
[50]
Bibliography
American Academy of Pediatrics, “Joint Statement of the Impact of Entertainment Violence on
Children,” Congressional Public Health Summit, July 26, 2000, http://www.aap.org.
Anderson, Craig, “Violent Video Games: Myths, Facts and Unanswered Questions,” www.
apa.org/science/psa/sb-andersonprt.html.
Bureau of Justice Statistics, “Criminal Victimization 2011,” accessed June 19, 2013, http://
www.bjs.gov/content/pub/press/cv11pr.cfm.
Bureau of Justice Statistics, “Four Measures of Serious Violent Crime,” 2010, http://bjs.ojp.
usdoj.gov.
Burgess, Melinda C. R., Karen E. Dill, S. Paul Stermer, Stephen R. Burgess, and Brian P. Brown.
“Playing with Prejudice: The Prevalence and Consequences of Racial Stereotypes in Video
Games.” Media Psychology 14 (2011), 289–311.
California Assembly Bill 1179 (2005), California Civil Code Annotated Sections 1746–1746.5
(West 2009). [Quotation] Section 1746(d)(1)(A).
Calvert, Clay, and Robert D. Richards. “The 2003 Legislative Assault on Violent Video Games:
Judicial Realities and Regulatory Rhetoric.” Villanova Sports and Entertainment Law Forum
11 (2004): 203–70.
Calvert, Clay, and Robert D. Richards. “Mediated Images of Violence and the First Amendment:
From Video Games to the Evening News.” Maine Law Review 57 (2005), 1–469.
Dahl, Ronald E. “Adolescent Brain Development: A Period of Vulnerabilities and Opportunities.” Annals of the New York Academy of Science, Adolescent Brain Development: Vulnerabilities and Opportunities 1021, no. 1 (2004), 91–115.
Regulating Violent Content in Video Games
193
DeLisi, Matt, Michael G. Vaughn, and Douglas A. Gentile. “Violent Video Games, Delinquency and
Youth Violence: New Evidence.” Youth Violence and Juvenile Justice 11, no. 2 (April 2013): 132–42.
Dill, Karen E., Douglas A. Gentile, William A. Richter and Jody C. Dill. “Violence, Sex, Race
and Age in Popular Video Games: A Content Analysis.” In Featuring Females: Feminist
Analyses of Media, edited by Ellen Cole and Jessica Henderson Daniel. (Washington, DC:
American Psychological Association, 2005), 115–130.
Entertainment Software Ratings Board, “Game Ratings and Descriptor Guide,” http://www.
esrb.org.
Felson, Richard B. “Mass Media Effects on Violent Behavior.” Annual Review of Sociology 22
(1996), 103–128.
Ferguson, Christopher J. “Violent Video Games and the Supreme Court: Lessons for the Scientific Community in the Wake of Brown v. Entertainment Merchants Association.” American
Psychologist 68, no. 2 (February–March 2013): 57–74.
Garbarino, James, Catherine P. Bradshaw, and Joseph A. Vorrasi. “Mitigating the Effects of Gun
Violence on Children and Youth.” The Future of Children 12, no. 2 (2002): 73–85.
Grossman, David, and Gloria DeGaetano. Stop Teaching Our Kids to Kill: A Call to Action
against TV, Movie and Video Game Violence. New York: Crown Publishers, 1999.
Hasan, Youssef, Laurent Begue, and Michael Scharkow. “The More You Play, the More Aggressive You Become: A Long-term Experimental Study of Cumulative Violent Video Game
Effects on Hostile Expectations and Aggressive Behavior.” Journal of Experimental Social Psychology 49, no. 2 (March 2013): 224–7.
Hurley, Susan. “Imitation, Media Violence and Freedom of Speech.” Philosophical Studies 117
(2004), 165–218.
Lam, Lawrence T., ZaoHuo Cheng, and XinMin Liu. “Violent Online Games Exposure and
Cyberbullying/Victimization among Adolescents.” Cyberpsychology and Social Networking 16,
no. 3 (March 2013): 159–65.
Li, William. “Unbaking the Adolescent Cake: The Constitutional Implications of Imposing Tort
Liability on Publishers of Violent Video Games.” Arizona Law Review 45 (2003), 467–505.
Lin, Jih-Hsuan. “Do Video Games Exert Stronger Effects on Aggression than Film? The Role of
Media Interactivity and Identification on the Association of Violent Content and Aggressive
Outcomes.” Computers in Human Behavior 29, no. 3 (May 2013): 535–43.
MacKenzie, Ann Haley. “The Brain, the Biology Classroom and Kids with Video Games.” The
American Biology Teacher 67, no. 9 (2005), 517–518.
Mahood, Chad, and Mike Z. Yao, “Violence against Police Officers in Videogames: The Effects
of Grand Theft Auto 3,” Unpublished paper, University of California at Santa Barbara, 2005.
[This paper is on file with the authors.]
Mahood, Chad, and Mike Z. Yao, “Violent Video Games and the Effects on How Players Play
the Game: Application and Elaboration of the General Aggression Model,” Paper presented
to the Mass Communication Division of the National Communication Association, Boston,
Massachusetts, November 19, 2005. [This paper is on file with the authors.]
McGonigal, Jane. Reality is Broken. New York: Penguin, 2011.
PR Newswire, “Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 2 Sets All-Time Entertainment Industry Record
Grossing an Estimated $550 Million Worldwide in First Five Days,” November 18, 2009,
http://investor.activision.com.
Reeves, Timothy Dylan. “Tort Liability for Manufacturers of Violent Video Games: A Situational
Discussion of the Causation Calamity.” Alabama Law Review 60 (2009), 519–546.
Saunders, Kevin W. “A Disconnect between Law and Neuroscience: Modern Brain Science,
Media Influences and Juvenile Justice.” Utah Law Review (2005), 695–741.
Sicart, Miguel. The Ethics of Computer Games. Boston: MIT Press, 2006.
Williams, Dimitri, Scott Caplan, and Li Xiong. “Can You Hear Me Now? The Impact of Voice
in an Online Gaming Community.” Human Communication Research 33 (2007), 427–449.
194
H. Wolf and J. Dee
Appendix A. Survey questions
DO NOT COMPLETE THIS SURVEY IF YOU ARE UNDER AGE 18
1. Do you play or have you played video games in the past five years?
Yes _____ No ______
2. Please list your 5 favorite video games.
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
5. *Approximately how many hours per week do you play video games?
0–1 ______ 2–5 _______ 6–10 _______ 11–15 _______ 16–20 _______ 21+
_______
6. Has your reaction time improved as a result of playing video games?
Not at all _____
A small amount _____
A moderate amount _____
A large amount _____
7. How much have video games helped you expand your social network or group
of friends?
Not at all _____
A small amount _____
A moderate amount _____
A great deal _____
8. Do you find that playing video games has helped you enhance any skills?
Yes _______ No ______ Somewhat _____
9. Do you find that playing video games has had any other benefits for you? If so,
please explain.
Yes (explain) ____________________________________________________
No _______
*
Authors’ Note: Questions 3 and 4 had originally asked for the respondents’ age and gender,
but these two questions were later moved to the end of the questionnaire, so Questions 3 and 4
were deleted from the questionnaire in its final form.
Regulating Violent Content in Video Games
195
10. Video games are given a rating between “E” for everyone to “AO” for adults
only. Of the video games that you play, think about how each one is rated. For
what fraction of those games do you know their ratings?
None of the games _____
About a quarter of the games _____
About half of the games _____
About three-quarters of the games _____
All (or nearly all) of the games _____
11. Before you were 18, did you ever buy a video game rated M (mature) or AO
(adults only)?
No, I have never purchased a video game rated M or AO ______
No, I never tried to purchase video games rated M or AO before I was 18
______
Yes, I did purchase videogames rated M or AO before I was 18 _____
12. Has any video game vendor ever asked to see identification when you
purchased a video game rated M or AO?
Yes _____
No ______
I have never purchased a game _______
13. In the past five years, have you played any games such as Grand Theft Auto,
Halo, or any other violent video game?
Yes _____No _____
14. Why do you play violent video games? (Mark all that apply.)
It is exciting ______
It gives me a sense of “escape;” I don’t think about anything while I am playing
_____
It gives me a sense of power ______
It lets me test how quick my reflexes are ______
I am good at it _______
I feel a sense of community with players online from other parts of the country
____
I like being part of a team _____
I like winning ______
My friends like it, so I play with them ______
Other
_________________________________________________________________
15. On average, how violent are the video games you play?
Hardly any violence O O O O O Graphically and disturbingly violent
196
H. Wolf and J. Dee
16. At present, the only regulation on the sales of video games is the ratings system. Do you think regulations are necessary to prevent sales of M- or AO-rated
games to minors?
Yes _______ No _______ I don’t know _______
17. Do you think that video game content should be regulated by governmental
legislation?
The government should regulate the content of video games _______
The government should not regulate the content of video games _______
18. In the past five years, have you purchased a violent video game rated M or
AO for yourself?
Yes ______ No ______
19. Would you continue to buy video games if the games were regulated to have
no violent content?
Definitely _______ Maybe _______ I don’t know _______ Maybe not ______
Definitely not _______
20. There have been several court cases in which a teenager or young adult committed an act of violence and claimed he was acting out a scene in a violent video
game. Should victims be able to sue the manufacturers of video games in these
cases?
____Yes, they should be allowed to sue to recover damages
____No, they should not be allowed to sue to recover damages
____I’m not sure; there are valid arguments on both sides
21. To what extent are violent video games responsible for an increase in violent
behavior in real life?
There has not been a significant increase in violent behavior in real life _____
Not at all _______
To a small extent _______
A moderate extent _____
To a great extent _____
Almost all violence in real life is instigated by video games _______
Thank you for giving your opinions about video games above. Now we would like
to ask for some demographic information in a few questions below.
22. Age: 18–19 _____ 20–21 ______ 22–24 ______ 25–30 ________ 31+
________
23. Gender: Male _____ Female ______
Regulating Violent Content in Video Games
197
24. Highest level of education:
Attended high school _______ High school diploma ______ Attended college
________ 2-year college degree _______ 4-year college degree _____Graduate
degree _______
25. In November 2008, I voted for:
___ Barack Obama
___ John McCain
___ Other
___ Did not vote
26. My religious beliefs could best be described as:
___ Protestant
___ Friend (Quaker)
___ Catholic
___ Jewish
___ Hindu
___ Buddhist
___ Atheist
___ Agnostic
___ Other
27. My yearly income is (if you are still in college, please indicate your parents’
income):
___ $0–9,999
___ $10,000–29,999
___ $30,000–49,999
___ $50,000–69,999
___ $70,000–89,999
___ $90,000–109,999
___ $110,000 or above
28. If you have any additional comments about video games and violence, please
put them here.