Impact of Violent Video Games on Aggressive Behavior in Children

The Supreme Court, in the case of Brown vs. Entertainment Merchants, ruled that the California law prohibiting the sale of violent video games to minors was not in terms with the First Amendment. The court ruled that it was unconstitutional to bar children from purchasing violent video games, stating that the government lacks the authority to restrict the ideas to which children may be exposed (Hudson). Some believe the ruling of the case by the Supreme Court should be revisited while others think that it was appropriate and should be upheld. The court case attracted a lot of controversies, with people disagreeing on their ruling of the court basis their arguments on various factors.   

The relationship between violent games and aggression among adolescents is critical in psychology. Some studies have proved that violent video games have an impact on the aggressive behaviors of adolescents. The General Aggression Model (GAM) suggests that the games constitute a behavior variable. GAM considers the impact of social, cognitive, and personality factors on aggression. It details how individual and situational factors impact arousal and feelings, which contribute to determining aggressive or nonaggressive behaviors (Allen et al., 76). Based on the situational factors, the aggressive behavior of the adolescent might have resulted from an experience they had in the past. Therefore, the aggressive behavior could not be related to video games, thus supporting the Supreme Court ruling. However, based on the individual factor, the adolescent could have developed aggressive behavior from the violent videos, thus supporting the idea of revisiting the ruling. Therefore, the Supreme Court ruling should have considered the impact of video games on the aggressive behavior of an adolescent.

Some argue that the ruling by the Supreme Court should not be visited and that it was accurate for the case. The states that violent video games have little or no influence on aggressive behavior among adolescents. It is claimed that aggressive child behavior might result from a genetic predisposition that develops even in adulthood (Shao and Wang). Individuals with aggressive personalities are most likely to produce violent behaviors than those without such personalities. Environmental factors significantly contribute to the aggressive behavior of a person. Although the environment does not cause violent behavior, it acts as a catalyst (Shao and Wang). Children born and raised by aggressive parents tend to adopt the behavior and reproduce it in the future. The children learn, copy, and imitate their caregivers' behaviors, thus becoming violent adults. The behavior can be modified by the neighborhood or the school they attend, but their personality cannot be permanently changed. Their genetic makeup, which is from the parents, cannot be changed; thus, the traces of aggressive personality remain with them. The behavior is catalyzed if the child is exposed to an environment with aggressive individuals, either in the neighborhood or at school.

Normative beliefs about the behavior introduce two concepts; general and retaliatory beliefs. The general belief directly correlates with aggression and supports the Supreme Court ruling on the case. The belief about aggressiveness can predict physical, indirect, and verbal aggression among adolescents (Shao and Wang). Therefore, aggressive behavior cannot be connected to a single factor. Still, it is a general aspect in every person and should be expected to occur in any situation based on the individual's interpretation. Therefore, the Supreme ruling should be upheld because violent video games did not cause the aggressive behavior of the adolescent.

However, retaliatory belief emphasizes the response to an experience. It is normal for a person to be aggressive based on the act they are reacting to after experiencing such behavior in another situation (Shao and Wang). The Supreme Court ruling should not be revisited because the adolescent was aggressive due to his experience with video games. Adolescents with firm normative beliefs of aggression are more likely to become violent. Therefore, normative beliefs can significantly predict aggressive behavior in a child who has interacted with violent video games. Moreover, based on the social cognitive theory by Bandura, violent video games can establish observational learning (Shao and Wang). Adolescents not only imitate aggressive behavior but also change their understanding of aggression.

I support the ruling by the Supreme Court because I do not believe that violent video games initiate the aggressive behavior of an adolescent. Although violent video games could have slightly influenced the adolescents to the behavior, there was not the root cause of the problem. Aggressive behavior cannot be developed in a person in a few days to become part of an individual's personality through video games. Environmental factors such as family and peers contribute much to such behaviors (Shao and Wang). For instance, if a child was born to violent parents, they tend to imitate and reproduce the behavior in various situations. If a child grew up in a violent neighborhood there is a high possibility that they will grow up with the same behavior. Moreover, if the teachers in school portray an aggressive behavior, it is most likely that the child will imitate them. The environment also determines how people understand a situation and respond. Therefore, violent video games cannot be related to aggressive behaviors.

Works Cited

David Hudson “Brown v. Entertainment Merchants Association (2011)” 2018

Johnie Allen, Craig Anderson, and Brad Bushman "The General Aggression Model" (2013)

Rong Shao and Yunqiang Wang “The Relation of Violent Video Games to Adolescent Aggression: An Examination of Moderated Meditation Effect” (2019)