Adopted by the APA Council of Representatives in August 2015. (Suggested citation is included with references.)
Video game use has become pervasive in the American child's life: More than 90% of U.S. children play some kind of video games; when considering only adolescents ages 12 - 17, that figure rises to 97% (Lenhart et.al, 2008; NPD Group, 2011;). Although high levels of video game use are often popularly associated with adolescence, children younger than age 8 who play video games spend a daily average of 69 minutes on handheld console games, 57 minutes on computer games, and 45 minutes on mobile games, including tablets (Rideout, 2013). Considering the vast number of children and youth who use video games and that more than 85% of video games on the market contain some form of violence, the public has understandably been concerned about the effects that using violent video games may have on individuals, especially children and adolescents.
News commentators often turn to violent video game use as a potential causal contributor to acts of mass homicide. The media point to perpetrators' gaming habits as either a reason that they have chosen to commit their crimes, or as a method of training. This practice extends at least as far back as the Columbine massacre (1999) and has more recently figured prominently in the investigation into and reporting of the Aurora, CO theatre shootings (2012), Sandy Hook massacre (2012), and Washington Navy Yard massacre (2013). This coverage has contributed to significant public discussion of the impacts of violent video game use. As a consequence of this popular perception, several efforts have been made to limit children's consumption of violent video games, to better educate parents about the effects of the content to which their children are being exposed, or both. Several jurisdictions have attempted to enact laws limiting the sale of violent video games to minors, and in 2011 the US Supreme Court considered the issue in Brown v. Entertainment Merchants Association, concluding that the First Amendment fully protects violent speech, even for minors.
In keeping with the American Psychological Association's (APA) mission to advance the development, communication, and application of psychological knowledge to benefit society, the Task Force on Violent Media was formed to review the APA Resolution on Violence in Video Games and Interactive Media adopted in 2005 and the related literature in order to ensure that the APA's resolution on the topic continues to be informed by the best science currently available and that it accurately represents the research findings directly related to the topic. This Resolution is based on the Task Force's review and is an update of the 2005 Resolution.
Scientists have investigated the effects of violent video game use for more than two decades. Multiple meta-analyses of the research have been conducted. Quantitative reviews since APA's 2005 Resolution that have focused on the effects of violent video game use have found a direct association between violent video game use and aggressive outcomes (Anderson et al. 2010, Ferguson 2007a, Ferguson 2007b, Ferguson & Kilburn 2009). Although the effect sizes reported are all similar (0.19, 0.15, 0.08, and 0.16, respectively), the interpretations of these effects have varied dramatically, contributing to the public debate about the effects of violent video games.
The link between violent video game exposure and aggressive behavior is one of the most studied and best established. Since the earlier meta-analyses, this link continues to be a reliable finding and shows good multi-method consistency across various representations of both violent video game exposure and aggressive behavior (e.g., Moller & Krahe, 2009; Saleem, Anderson, & Gentile, 2012). Aggressive behavior examined in this research included experimental proxy paradigms, such as the administration of a noise blast to a confederate, and self-report questionnaires, peer nominations and teacher ratings of aggressiveness focused on behaviors including insults, threats, hitting, pushing, hair pulling, biting and other forms of verbal and physical aggression. The findings have also been seen over a range of samples, including those with older children, adolescent, and young adult participants. There is also consistency over time, in that the new findings are similar in effect size to those from past meta-analyses.
Similarly, the research conducted since the 2005 APA Resolution using aggressive cognitions and aggressive affect as outcomes also shows a direct effect of violent video game use (e. g., Hasan, Begue, Scharkow & Bushman, 2013; Shafer, 2012). Researchers have also continued to find that violent video game use is associated with decreases in socially desirable behavior such as prosocial behavior, empathy, and moral engagement (e.g., Arriaga, Monteiro & Esteves, 2011; Happ, Melzer & Steffgen, 2013).
The violent video game literature uses a variety of terms and definitions in considering aggression and aggressive outcomes, sometimes using "violence" and "aggression" interchangeably, or using "aggression" to represent the full range of aggressive outcomes studied, including multiple types and severity levels of associated behavior, cognitions, emotions, and neural processes. This breadth of coverage but lack of precision in terminology has contributed to some debate about the effects of violent video game use. In part, the numerous ways that violence and aggression have been considered stem from the multidisciplinary nature of the field. Epidemiologists, criminologists, physicians and others approach the phenomena of aggression and violence from different perspectives than do psychologists, and emphasize different definitions of the phenomena accordingly. Some disciplines are interested only in violence, and not other dimensions of aggression. In psychological research, aggression is usually conceptualized as behavior that is intended to harm another (see Baron & Richardson, 1994; Coie & Dodge, 1998; Huesmann & Taylor, 2006; VandenBos, 2007). Violence can be defined as an extreme form of aggression (see Encyclopedia of Psychology, 2000) or the intentional use of physical force or power, that either results in or has a high likelihood of resulting in harm (Krug, Dahlberg, Mercy, Zwi, & Lozano,2002 ).
Thus, all violence, including lethal violence, is aggression, but not all aggression is violence. This distinction is important for understanding this research literature, which has not focused on lethal violence as an outcome. Insufficient research has examined whether violent video game use causes lethal violence. The distinction is also important for considering the implications of the research and for interpreting popular press accounts of the research and its applicability to societal events.
