Medicine

Are video games to blame for mass murder?

By Chris Rangel MD ⋅ April 18, 2007 ⋅  Email this post ⋅  Print this post ⋅ Post a comment

Dr Phil: Mentally ill mass murderers are programmed by violent video games and movies - Appearing on Larry King Live on the day of the tragedy, psychologist and host of his own show, Phil McGraw had the following little gem to say about the etiology of mass murder (emphasis added).

“The problem is we are programming these people as a society. You cannot tell me — common sense tells you that if these kids are playing video games, where they’re on a mass killing spree in a video game, it’s glamorized on the big screen, it’s become part of the fiber of our society. You take that and mix it with a psychopath, a sociopath or someone suffering from mental illness and add in a dose of rage, the suggestibility is too high. And we’re going to have to start dealing with that. We’re going to have to start addressing those issues and recognizing that the mass murders of tomorrow are the children of today that are being programmed with this massive violence overdose.”

Common sense? Yes, and common sense should also tell us that the Earth is flat and is at the center of the universe but this is a fallacy as is the appeal to “common sense”. Apparently the Enlightenment has bypassed the Dr. Phil show.

The reality is that while some studies have found clear evidence for increased aggressive behavior and thoughts in subjects during and just after playing violent video games, there is no evidence that there are any lasting effects. There is no evidence that video games or other violent media (like movies) have such long-term significant effects on behavioral patterns that leads to an increased likelihood of criminally violent behavior in the future.

An explanation of this apparent contradiction in experimental results comes from animal studies. Most mammalian species display play activity such as “play fighting” and so via different behavioral signals are able to make a cognitive distinction between actual and pretend combat. Ergo, humans (including children) are able to make a distinction between real violence and play violence and act accordingly.

I.e. when we play games we enter into a “second-order reality” or what game theorist Eric Zimmermann called the “magic circle” in which we allow our behavior to be limited/controlled by the rules of the game. This behavior also includes the associated emotional responses (to an extent). A gamer may feel fear, anger, frustration, and a heightened sense of aggression and competitiveness while playing but these emotions are limited by the rules and consequences of the game. When we lose in the game we don’t get hurt in real life. Gamers maintain an awareness of what is in the magic circle and what is outside it (i.e. reality) therefore violent games do not change our perceptions or reactions to real world violence. The same should be true for violent images that we see in the mass media.

The other problem with studying behavior and video games or other media is that while most non-randomized retrospective studies can show association very well, most are very limited in their ability to prove causation. For example, using a survey method Anderson and Dill found a statistical correlation between college students who played a lot of aggressive video games and increased rates of aggressive delinquent behavior and poor grades. What they could not show was which came first, the behavior/personality traits or the video games and how much relative effect each had on the other. I.e. were these students delinquent types who liked violent video games or relatively normal students whose behavior was fundamentally altered by violent games?

What about people with pre-existing mental illness? Although people suffering from serious mental illness like schizophrenia, major depression, or bipolar disorder are twice as likely to commit a violent act as the general population, the vast majority of people who do commit violent crimes do NOT have any serious mental illness and the vast majority of those with mental illness do NOT commit any violent crimes. Other variables like male gender, youth, substance abuse, and poverty are far better predictors of future violent behavior than mental illness alone. And there is no evidence that exposure to violent images leads to or significantly contributes to violent behavior in the mentally ill.

Mental illness is not even a good predictor of the future risk of committing mass murder. In one study of 34 adolescent mass murderers only 23% had any evidence of pre-existing mental illness and only a scant 6% showed signs of psychosis. It appears that Mr. McGraw is simply stirring the pot of ignorance, paranoia, and prejudice against people with mental illnesses.

That a PhD like Mr. McGraw would go on a national TV show and make statements about issues that should be well within his field of expertise but that are not supported by the current evidence and claim that it’s “common sense” is blatantly pathetic. It’s as if I went on CNN and claimed that it’s common sense that pneumonia is caused by swamp gas and “bad vapors”. In the process of writing this article I now know more about the correct association of violent video games and other media with violent behavior than a licensed psychologist. That’s scary.

Or is Dr. Phil simply pandering to his audience demographic? The people who watch “Dr. Phil” tend to belong to the daytime TV Oprah-watching crowd who take everything at face value and for whom “common sense” means more than actual evidence. It’s much better for Phil to use violent video games as a scapegoat since members of this Oprah demographic rarely play these games (the majority of gamers are male). A worse choice for Phil would have been to blame the Sopranos or bad parenting or (*gasp*) watching too much bad daytime TV.