Are violent video games dangerous?

Parents' ultimate guide to video games (Part 2)

Nov 07, 2022

Welcome to Techno Sapiens! Subscribe to join thousands of other readers and get research-backed tips for living and parenting in the digital age.

Summary for busy sapiens

We’ve got a deep dive on the research on violent video games today. If that’s your thing, please read on! If you’re just looking for a quick summary and tips, scroll to the bottom for What Parents Should Know.

There is a lot of debate over the effects of violent video games.
There’s evidence that playing violent video games can increase risk for aggressive behavior, but not long-term violent or criminal behavior.
Risks are small, so other factors (family environment, child personality) are probably more important. For some kids, the effects will be negligible; for others, they may be greater.
Between 66-78% of teen boys play violent games sometimes; these games can be an important part of some kids’ social lives.

10 min read

I am a person who has never been in a physical fight. I can count on one hand the number of times I’ve raised my voice at someone. I cover my eyes during violent movie scenes, and to my husband’s dismay, have sworn off multiple critically-acclaimed TV series because the deaths-per-episode ratio is far too high for my liking (Yellowstone was nearly the end of me)1.

So, I wouldn’t say I’m a person who is particularly comfortable with conflict, let alone violent conflict.

I am, however, a person who is extremely comfortable with a good, old-fashioned academic debate. And let me tell you, techno sapiens, the debate over violent video games is one for the ages. There’s drama, there’s intrigue, there’s heated discussion of statistical effect sizes.

This one’s got it all!

And why should I care about this?

As a parent, you’ve likely heard some version of sentiment that violent video games are dangerous for kids.

You’ve also likely heard some version of the sentiment that the dangers of violent video games are totally overblown, and there’s nothing to worry about.

As always, the truth seems to be somewhere in the middle, and there’s a lot in this debate that remains unsettled. To understand why, it’s useful to dive into the details. So, let’s talk about what we know, how we got here, and, of course, what it means for us as parents.

Let’s start with a definition

You’ve likely heard of some of the currently popular violent video games, like Call of Duty, Grand Theft Auto, Red Dead Redemption 2, and PlayerUnknown’s Battleground (PUBG)2.

But what, exactly, makes for a “violent video game”?

We actually have a very clear (legal) definition3:

Violent video game means any video game which includes depictions of or simulations of human-on-human violence in which the player kills or otherwise causes serious physical harm to another human. "Serious physical harm" includes depictions of death, dismemberment, amputation, decapitation, maiming, disfigurement, mutilation of body parts, or rape.

Grand Theft Auto V on Steam — Grand Theft Auto V. Common Sense Media sums up its review: “Crime, violence, sex, drugs, and alcohol = not for kids.”

Okay, that sounds…bad. What does the science say?

At the center of the tangled web of violent video game debate is a landmark meta-analysis, published in Psychological Bulletin in 2010. Synthesizing 381 effect sizes across over 130,000 participants, the authors found a significant effect of playing violent video games on: more aggressive behavior, aggressive thoughts, and aggressive emotions, plus decreased empathy and less prosocial (i.e., helpful, kind, cooperative) behavior.

Many of the included studies were cross-sectional, and we all know the problems with those—they don’t tell us whether playing violent video games causes aggression, or whether more aggressive people are just more likely to play violent games.

But some of the studies were longitudinal, showing that even after we account for people’s existing levels of aggression, violent video games can still increase aggressive tendencies.

And many of the studies were experimental. In general, these experimental studies work like this: participants are randomly assigned to play violent or non-violent video games. Then, they participate in a “Competitive Reaction Time” test. Participants are told they’re competing against another person, sitting in a separate room, on a test of reaction time (i.e., pressing a button as fast as possible in response to an image on the screen). The “winner” of the test then gets to choose the volume of a loud, annoying noise played for the “loser.” Participants assigned to play violent games are more likely to act “aggressively” afterward, punishing the loser by choosing louder sounds.

The authors of the meta-analysis find significant effects across cross-sectional, longitudinal, and experimental studies, concluding “The evidence strongly suggests that exposure to violent video games is a causal risk factor for increased aggressive behavior…”

Again, this sounds bad. What’s the debate here?

It seems so simple, doesn’t it? Indeed, one response to this meta-analysis suggested that the findings “nailed the coffin shut” on doubts about the negative effects of video games.

Alas, techno sapiens, research is never so simple.

Immediately published alongside this meta-analysis, also in Psychological Bulletin, was another response article, this one from a competing researcher faction. The article’s title contains the phrase “Much ado about nothing,” so you know it’s gonna be good.

The researchers argue that the meta-analysis results are flawed. Among other things, they argue that:

Lab-based measures of aggression (i.e., “noise blasts”) are a poor indicator of real-life aggression.
The authors failed to control for other variables, like gender, personality, or family factors.
The authors didn’t properly account for “publication bias,” or the idea that studies supporting the link between violent games and aggression are more likely to be published than those that don’t
The statistical effects of violent games on aggression are too small to be practically meaningful. They argue, for example, that the effects of things like poverty, firearm ownership, and physical abuse on crime are much larger than those of violent games on aggression.

Later, the same authors published their own meta-analysis in Perspectives on Psychological Science, using their preferred techniques, and, again, argue that the resulting effect sizes are too small to mean much of anything.

A scene from Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 2.

What happened next?

Of course, this was not the end of the debate.

A response to the response to the original 2010 meta-analysis was titled “Much ado about something” (!) and begins with a gritted-teeth statement about the value of “healthy scientific debate” that seems, perhaps, intended less for the reader than for the authors themselves.

In it, the authors offer valid counterpoints for each of their detractors’ arguments:

“Noise blast” measures are actually highly correlated with other lab-based aggression measures. Plus, the authors note elsewhere, it would be highly unethical to incite people to engage in violent crimes in a lab.
Many well-known studies do control for variables like gender, personality, or family factors, and still find significant violent video game effects
After accounting for publication bias, the results still hold
The effect sizes are on par with other psychological effects. Even small effect sizes can be meaningful when they occur on a large scale (i.e., exposure by large segments of the population) or accumulate over time. They note that the effect of violent games on aggression is roughly 6 times the size of the effect of daily aspirin on preventing heart attack—an effect that was large enough to halt a randomized trial because it was considered unethical to withhold the aspirin from control participants.

Updated meta-analyses in 2018 and 2021 similarly find significant, though small, negative effects of violent games. In 2017, a task force at the American Psychological Association (APA) weighed in, too, concluding that there was sufficient evidence to link violent video game use with increased aggressive behavior, thoughts, and emotions, but not with serious criminal behavior.

Other reviews suggest that effects will depend on factors like age and family dynamics. With each of these publications, the old arguments—over noise blasts and effect sizes and third variables—are rehashed again.

And on and on the debate goes4.

What does this all mean?

Often, when it comes to psychology research, the conclusion is that we don’t have enough studies to come to a definitive answer. “More research is needed,” we say.

But the research on violent video games is different. We do have a lot of research. Decades of research; hundreds of studies with various methods; multiple, highly rigorous meta-analyses. I’m not convinced that more studies will ever get us to a definitive answer.

Here, the questions are not centered around “what will we find?” but rather, “how do we interpret what we’ve already found?” And many of these questions, about experimental methods and effect sizes and third variables, get at the core of how to do psychological science in the first place. Those are tough questions to answer.

Here’s my take:

There is evidence that, at least in the short-term, playing violent video games can increase aggressive behavior, thoughts, and feelings. Whether this is due to learning and/or imitation of violent acts, or just emotional arousal (i.e., frustration, adrenaline, etc.), is not clear.
There is little evidence that playing violent video games leads to long-term increases in risk for violent or criminal behavior.
The effects of violent games on aggression are small, but they do exist. This probably means that other factors, like a kid’s family environment and personality, are more important predictors, but for some kids, violent games will make a difference.
These risks should be considered alongside the realities of teens’ social lives. Between 66-78% of teen boys play violent games sometimes. For some kids, they offer an important opportunity for connecting with friends.

What is PUBG Mobile and why is everyone talking about PlayerUnk — PUBG: Battlegrounds, a last-man-standing game where players fight (and kill other players) to be the last person alive.

What parents should know

Now that we have an overview of the data on violent video games, we can mix in a few other key ingredients: our knowledge of our child, and our own preferences, opinions, and intuition as parents. As we let all those ingredients swirl around and simmer together, we can come to a decision on how to approach this with our kids. Of course, our recipes will change as things evolve—our kids get older, more research comes out, we watch a scene from Call of Duty and decide we don’t feel comfortable with it—but each of these ingredients remains an important part of the soup5.

With this personalized mix of data, preferences, and child factors, parents will come to different conclusions. Some will feel comfortable with their child playing violent games. Others will look at the trailer for a first-person shooter game and think absolutely not. Amidst a debate that is not settled, and perhaps never will be, each of these approaches seems reasonable to me.

As we make these decisions, here are some things to keep in mind:

Know the research. Violent video games likely cause a small increase in risk of aggressive behavior, thoughts, and feelings; but not long-term violent or criminal behavior. For some kids, the impact will be negligible; for others, it may be greater. These risks should be considered alongside the reality that certain violent games can be an important piece of pre-teens’ and teens’ social lives.

Know your child. Are they prone to aggression? Do they have trouble regulating their behavior? Is their friend group often getting in trouble? These might indicate a reason for caution. On the other hand, a non-aggressive child with a positive friend group may be more protected from the (small) risks. Pay attention to your child after they play—how does it seem to affect them? Do they seem to understand the difference between video game and real-life violence? You might even consider allowing your child to play certain games for a “trial period,” and pause at any signs of aggressive behavior.

Know the games. Try playing a new game with your child the first few times, or watching them play on occasion (painful, I know). Find out whether your child is playing with friends, or playing alone. Check out game reviews and age ratings on websites like Common Sense Media. It can be helpful to learn about different levels and game options, which can be more or less violent. Find out if there’s a chat, too, and set it to private. Consider parental controls.

Talk about it. Explain any concerns about violent video games to your child, and listen to their opinions. Talk about your family’s values around kindness, respect, and empathy. Ask how they think video games affect other kids their age. Encourage them to notice when games are exaggerated or unrealistic.

Set (flexible) limits. Decide on your rules—what they can play, and where and when they can play it—knowing that the rules will evolve as kids mature, new games come out, and schedules change. Maybe you’ll decide on a game-by-game basis. Maybe you’ll set limits on violent games at home, but let your kid play at friends’ houses. Or maybe you’ll allow your child to play, but only when it’s social (i.e., playing with other kids they know). Research suggests that how we set limits matters, too. An autonomy-supportive approach to setting rules—one in which our kids feel that we treat them as individuals and respect their opinions—is particularly effective.

Techno Sapiens