Shifting the Paradigm in Video Gaming: The Positive Effects of Video Games on Adolescent Development

Shifting the Paradigm in

Video

Gaming The Positive Effects of Video Games on Adolescent Development

Nicholas Iati

C u l t u r a l

a n d

T e c h n o l o g i c a l

C h a n g e

Contents Introduction ..................................................................................................................................... 3 The Source of Misconception..................................................................................................... 4 Section One....................................................................................................................................... 4 Researching the Negative Effects.............................................................................................. 5 Publicizing, Generalizing, and Overdramatizing................................................................. 5 Shifting the Paradigm . ................................................................................................................. 7 Considering the Benefits.............................................................................................................. 7 Section Two....................................................................................................................................... 7 Looking to the Future.................................................................................................................... 9 What Video Game Developers Should Consider.................................................................. 9 Stepping Up the Game................................................................................................................10 What Parents Should Do to Take a More Active Role.......................................................10 Moving Forward............................................................................................................................11 What Happens Now?...................................................................................................................11 Sources Cited..................................................................................................................................12

Introduction Violent video games have long been criticized as the source of mindless addiction, and at their worst, violent and antisocial adolescent behavior in studies by, for example, Craig Anderson, Doug Gentile, and Katherine Buckley. Yet many of these studies, which employ unrealistic testing environments and variables, and provide sparse evidence of causality furthermore, fail to identify the powerfully positive effects video games have on development, specifically as involve learning, since video games foster problem solving, collaboration, and creativity by presenting challenges requiring players to strategize while oftentimes working in cooperation with other players. Such cooperation, in turn, relegates the more violent aspects to a secondary role in relation to an understanding of an overall game-playing experience; therefore, traditional mainstream rhetoric focusing on the negative effects some of the more violent video games have on adolescent development is overstated and overgeneralized to such an extent that it typecasts all video games as detrimental to adolescent development. This broad characterization provides an inaccurate portrayal of the overall effects video games have on adolescent development, which, I argue , can be beneficial if game developers shift the focus more onto prosocial themes and parents beginning to take more active roles in mediating their children’s game-playing experiences by selecting games in which the prosocial aspects outweigh the anti-social aspects.

Here I will explore the mainstream rhetoric surrounding video games and how it’s fostered a general impression that they are, at best, useless wastes of time, and, at worst, detrimental to the development of adolescents who regularly play them. I will, first, identify and describe a select few case studies and their respective findings on the negative effects of video games, as well as some generally accepted definitional and methodological issues most researchers studying the negative effects apply to their research. Next, I will examine flaws in the research, such as unrealistic test environment conditions and irrelevant comparisons that have been drawn between interactive media (video games) and noninteractive media (television and movies) which have been used to formulate conclusions in studies on the negative effects of video games and has contributed greatly to misguiding public perception. I will then present a counter-argument, based on empirical evidence as well as published studies, that video games can actually have profound positive effects on adolescent behavior and development – even arguing, with the support of a published study, that violent video games can actually curb hostile behaviors. I will highlight the fact that studies on both sides of the argument have one fundamental thing in common – video games have powerful effects, no matter if they are positive or negative and we should, therefore, work to explore the manners in which we can utilize video games to facilitate positive change in areas such as education. From here, I will cite research and articles which examine all of the proven positive effects video games have on adolescent development and behavior – this will include mental, physical, and social benefits. Finally, I will identify the crucial necessity for game developers, and parents alike, to approach adolescent video gaming responsibly by advocating video games which incorporate prosocial themes. I will provide recommendations to parents for effectively monitoring and ensuring a positive and fruitful video gaming experience for their children such as what qualities a parent should look for in a video game when selecting one for his or her child, enforcing reasonable time limits on game-play, and ensuring a child is participating in a number of different types of activities aside from his or her game-play. I will address game developers’ roles in facilitating a positive future in video gaming by providing a number of ways in which they can incorporate positive themes in the video games they release, such as, a decreased emphasis on violence, crime, and sex, and an increased emphasis on practical themes which may supplement educational objectives, such as, incorporating scientific, mathematical, and references to historic events which will reinforce subjects taught in school.

...video games can actually have profound positive effects on adolescent behavior and development...

Section One

The Source of Misconception In order to understand the positive potential of video games we must first put the negative into perspective. Video games have been the source of controversy since the dawn of their existence over 30 years ago. The negative rhetoric shaping public perception of video games is thought to be, by many video game advocates, a calculated crusade to diminish the value of video games by a handful of outspoken researchers standing in opposition to them. Craig Anderson and Doug Gentile are key figures in such staunch opposition to video games due to, what they believe, are severely detrimental effects on the developmental and behavioral health of adolescents. They have published countless of their own research results linking video games to undesirable behavior in adolescents, including, apathy, laziness, addiction, and most alarming of all - violence. At the forefront of the debate is the perception that violent and antisocial adolescent behavior results from playing violent video games, while other factors, such as video game addiction, only add to the negative overall perception of video games. Mainstream media reports indicating video games as motivating factors of violent events, such as school shootings, has fostered an undesirable, albeit unfair, public attitude on the overall value of video games. In short, such rhetoric has influenced a general impression that video games are, at best, useless wastes of time, and, at worst, detrimental to the development of adolescents who regularly play them.

Anderson, Gentile, and Buckley’s Book: Violent Video Game Effects on Children and Asolescents

Researching the Negative Effects Publicizing, Generalizing, and Overdramatizing The approach of most research conducted on the negative effects of video games on adolescent development and behavior is argued by many critics as over-generalized and inconclusive. Studies on the effects of violent video games are constructed on a foundation comprised of a number of definitional and methodological issues including definitions for aggression and its subtypes and generally-accepted research and review methodologies.

Aggression is generally accepted to encompass “measures as varied as behaviors that harmed another person, intentions to harm someone, and thoughts or feelings about harming oneself or others” (Anderson, Gentile, and Buckley 12-13). Aggression is further defined as having three distinct subtypes – physical aggression and violence, verbal aggression, and relational aggression (Anderson, Gentile, and Buckley 14). Physical aggression and violence is any act “causing harm by direct physical means, such as by hitting, tripping, stabbing, or shooting. Violence is simply one form of physical aggression at the high end of the severity dimension” (Anderson, Gentile, and Buckley 14). Verbal aggression “involves causing harm by verbal means, such as by calling a person hurtful names. It includes written statements (including email and Web pages) that attempt to cause harm or evaluations of others that are intended to harm the target person” (Anderson, Gentile, and Buckley 14). Relational aggression “consists of behaviors that harm others through damage (or threat of damage) to relationships or to feelings of acceptance, friendship, or group inclusion” (Anderson, Gentile, and Buckley 14).

Research and review methodologies come in varied forms including experimental studies, in which, the researcher randomly assigns subjects to different controls and variables; cross-section correlational studies, in which, “independent variables (e.g., level of habitual exposure to violent video games) and dependent variables (e.g., frequency of fighting at school) are measured once throughout the study” – many times in the form of a questionnaire (Anderson, Gentile, and Buckley 15); and longitudinal studies, in which all variables are measured multiple times throughout the study, “separated by theoretically meaningful time intervals” (Anderson, Gentile, and Buckley 16).

An experimental study of violent video games with elementary school and college students, conducted by Anderson, Gentile, and Buckley, was designed to examine four main questions (Anderson, Gentile, and Buckley, 61): 1. Can violent video games increase aggression?

2. Would the same kinds of violent effects observed in elementary school children occur in college students?

3. Would T-rated violent video games (for teens and older) produce a greater increase in aggression than the violence n children’s games?

4. Would variables such as gender, prior exposure to violent media, availability of video games in one’s bedroom, preference for violent video games, and parental involvement in media usage moderate short-term effects violent video game-play?

The results of the study were reported in over-generalized terms, stating that “subjects playing violent video games punished their opponents with significantly more high-noise blasts than those who played non-violent games. Exposure to violent media was positively associated with higher levels of recent violent behavior. Newer interactive forms of violent media (violent video games) was more strongly related to violent behavior than was exposure to noninteractive violent media (television, movies)” (Anderson, Gentile, and Buckley 66).

The inherent flaws in this research cannot be denied upon close examination.

Most video game researchers today, including Anderson and Gentile, rely heavily “on the long-term studies of television violence to validate the probable longterm effects of video game violence” (DeMaria 14). Anderson professes that, in comparison to television, the violent aspects of video games are likely to result in more pronounced violent behavior because of the interactive nature of video games. Critics of Anderson’s claims, such as Dmitri Williams, assistant professor at the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign in the Department of Speech Communication, disagree with the assumption that video game effects can be likened to those of television because “’video games are fundamentally different than television” (DeMaria 14).

As a matter of fact, some researchers have strived to prove just the opposite of that which researchers like Anderson and Gentile fervently support, suggesting that violent video games actually reduce hostile behavior. Researchers from Texas A&M who conducted a study on the effects of violent video games released findings stating that violent video games can actually subdue violent behavior. The

research, conducted by Dr. Christopher J. Ferguson, began by presenting subjects with a “frustration task.” After the initial task was completed, subjects were split into three groups – the first did not play a game, the second played a neutral game, and the third group played a violent game. Results of the exercises revealed the violentgame helped to reduce the stress in the group playing it through “mood management, essentially acting as a stress ball” (Fleming).

Another study, lead by Doug Gentile over a two-year period of time, claims that video game addiction “heightens mental issues in children” (McHugh). Gentile links childhood depression, anxiety, and social phobias to video game addiction and claims that his study demonstrated a decrease in such negative effects as test subjects curbed their addictions (McHugh). The study surveyed over 3,000 school-age children and claimed that one in ten could be classified as a video game addict. Critics of the study question the validity of Gentile’s findings, stating that he is reporting questionable results to further his “crusade against gaming” (McHugh). The study admits that many of the children surveyed had a predisposition to behavioral issues, “but purports that video games intensified them” (McHugh).

The true problem with much of the research done on the negative effects of video games is the fact that none of the “results” point to a causal link. The problem is amplified once mainstream media reports these arguably inconclusive reports which are theoretically nothing more than assumptions. What is most interesting about the mainstream discussion surrounding video games is the overemphasis of the negative effects and the results of studies conducted on those effects. People seem to be focusing on “what could be,” rather than “what truly is” despite the fact that “juvenile arrests for violent crimes are lower now than in 1980” (Fleming). Furthermore, many studies disproving any correlation between increased violence in adolescents and violent video games have been conducted by myriad “prestigious groups such as The Harvard Medical School Center for Medical Health, The Journal of Adolescent Health, and the British Medical Journal” (Fleming).

There are a number of factors which are either overlooked or misrepresented in much of the research on the so-called negative effects of video games. First, there seems to be virtually no replication of environmental factors when surveying potential negative effects. Subjects are either polled through questionnaires, which cannot possibly capture the countless factors contributing to final results, or they are observed in laboratory settings which do not adequately represent conditions existing in the normal game-playing environments of the subjects being observed. The omission of social factors skews testing results even further. Video games are a “social phenomenon” and testing solo game-play in a laboratory setting does not capture the highly collaborative aspects of video-gaming – a major oversight. “For instance, can peer pressure have positive and negative effects on players, causing them to act violently or antisocially? Peer pressure and other social influences do affect people’s behavior, but no data exist to show whether video gamers’ reactions to peer pressure and other social influences result in any noticeably negative effects” (DeMaria 14). As researchers on the negative effects fail to incorporate key aspects of video-gaming such as the competitive and collaborative aspects to their testing efforts, they are essentially diminishing the factors which make video games unique. Dmitri Williams asserts that more studies should “’be carried out by people who understand games as well as scientific research methods.

Another detrimental flaw in most of the research on the negative effects of video games is the role parents play in facilitating their children’s consumption of media, including media of a violent nature. “Even with the TV research, Williams says that when kids watched TV with their parents, the effects were radically different. ‘Viewing ‘negative’ content with parental guidance can have the opposite effects and can reduce the likelihood of long-term negative effects’” (DeMaria 15).

In 2002, a group of thirty-three prominent researchers from all over the world, filed a brief to the United States Court of Appeals supporting the appeal of a decision the lower court made declaring video games were not protected by the First Amendment. That lower court decision “relied heavily on research by Anderson and his colleagues as primary proof of the link between violent behavior and video games” (DeMaria 15). The brief cited numerous articles and studies and stated that most studies on the negative effects “failed to demonstrate a clear link between video game violence and violent behavior,” and even went on to claim that some of those studies were actually demonstrating “a positive release of emotion (catharsis) from such play” (DeMaria 15). The judge in the case eventually ruled against the lower court’s prior decions, “claiming that studies presented were at best flawed, and at worst simply wrong” (Fleming).

Considering the flaws in the research on the negative effects of video games,it is obvious that further research needs to be conducted but, as Rusel DeMaria asks in his book Reset: Changing the Ways We Look at Video Games, “what do we study? If we seek only the negative connections, perhaps we can convince ourselves that they exist and find statistics to support that belief. Instead of focusing on the negative – on the fears and the predictions – we can explore the medium of video games more carefully and find out how it differs from other entertainment media and how, in its differences, it also offers great new possibilities” (DeMaria 17).

Section Two

Shifting the Paradigm Considering the Benefits In an article for Psychology Today, Clay Routledge, Ph.D. proposes a novel concept – “if playing antisocial (i.e., violent) games can lead to antisocial behavior, it makes sense to propose that playing prosocial games can lead to prosocial behavior” (Routledge). Routledge goes on to cite a series of experiments published in the Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, in which, conclusive evidence supporting the prosocial hypothesis resulted. Subjects playing a prosocial game were found to be more likely to offer assistance to another person in need than subjects who played a neutral game (a game that exhibits neither antisocial nor prosocial themes). As a matter of fact, the willingness to help another person in need was strikingly more common in the prosocial gaming subjects than the neutral game players. The experimenters staged a scenario in which the lead experimenter was being harassed by an ex-boyfriend who stormed into the room. Ten out of the eighteen prosocial game players intervened while only four out of the eighteen neutral game players intervened in the same situation (Routledge).

Routledge identifies the need for more research on the prosocial effects of video games for a number of reasons. “First, such research could further challenge the claim that video games are inherently antisocial by demonstrating that it really depends on the game” (Routledge). He points out that out of a list of 25 best-selling video game titles, only four on the list were “explicitly violent.” The rest of the list included “sports, racing, simulation, and silly cartoonish games featuring characters such as our favorite plumber and hedgehog” (Routledge). This, he contends, further debunks the widespread notion that “kids are being fed a steady diet of violent games.” He adds that this kind of “research highlighting potential positive benefits of gaming suggests that the news media should be more nuanced in their coverage of the connection between gaming and social ills” (Routledge). The fact that national statistics suggest decreases in violent crime over the past few decades lends credit to the claims of video game supporters.

Routledge believes video games haven’t affected violent crime rates “because kids and adults are not simply playing games that promote violence. They are playing games with violent content and games with no violent or even prosocial content” (Routledge). He also cites the social factors at play which work to shape behavior, such as, television, family, and friends. As video games become more and more thematically complex and interactive, a single game can demonstrate a solid mix of both antisocial and prosocial elements. “Some of the more popular games such as Fable II and Red Dead Redemption have built-in rewards and punishments for pro and antisocial behavior” (Routledge).

Research on the positive effects video games have on adolescent development and behavior strongly suggests that “video games may actually teach kids high-level thinking skills that they will need in the future” (raisesmartkid.com). The skills most video games exercise involve abstract and high-level thinking, including, following instructions, problem solving and logic, hand-eye coordination, and fine motor and spatial skills. The lessons are not limited, however, to just a few high-level areas of development. Many games require players to employ a certain amount of resource management and logistics. “Players learn to manage resources that are limited, and decide the best use of resources,” much like the demands of real life (raisesmartkid.

com). Additionally, strategy video games demand a great deal of “multitasking, simultaneous tracking of many shifting variables and managing multiple objectives” (raisesmartkid.com). Players must consider both short-range and long-range strategic objectives in order to be successful in their game-play. In the context of such games, this could mean that a player must focus on a primary mission (i.e., releasing prisoners being held in a dungeon on the opposite site of the game environment’s map), while simultaneously engaging in secondary missions along the way (i.e., helping a villager find a lost artifact). The growing popularity of role playing games (RPGs) has demonstrated an emphasis on the development of reading and math skills since young gamers are required to read in-game instructions and dialog as well as exercise “quantitative analysis like managing resources” (raisesmartkid.com). Since video games inherently possess internal logic, players also develop pattern recognition and estimating skills. Video games build on the fundamentals of learning by encouraging “inductive reasoning and hypothesis testing. For instance, players in some games constantly try out combinations of weapons and powers to use to defeat an enemy. If one does not work, they change hypothesis and try the next one” (raisesmartkid.com).

The two most important and influential aspects of video games are the teamwork, or collaborative aspect, and the simulation of real world skills. Most kids are playing video games together, in either physical environments where each child is physically present and participating in game-play, or online environments in which a great deal of communication is taking place over a gaming network.

The hybridization of video games as not only entertainment media but also social media supports an environment in which real world skills are practiced and honed. Video games introduce children “to computer technology and the online world” (raisesmartkid.com).

Additionally, there are more and more video game titles being released that appeal to parents and children alike.

Video games can bring families together and offer parents the opportunity to learn from their children as they teach not only the basics of the technology, but also how to play the game. This allows parents to gauge a “child’s skills and talents” (raisesmartkid.com).

What makes video games so powerfully effective in terms of education is their entertainment value. Kids like video games “because of the colors, the animation, the eye candy, as well as the interactivity and the challenge and the rewards of winning.

The best way to learn is when the learner is having fun at the same time” (raisesmartkid.com). The wide-scale development of video games with serious purposes is well underway, due in-part to the launch of the Serious Games Initiative in 2002. Serious games are classified as games which are “purpose driven” (DeMaria 145). Most video games produced by commercial studios and released on the mainstream market may include themes which have some sort of moral or educational value; however, they are primarily intended for entertainment value. In serious game development, the game theme “starts with purpose and uses the techniques and technology of games to make the experience entertaining” (DeMaria 145). In contrast to a typical video game sold on the mainstream market, a serious game’s “purpose is the priority and the entertainment value is the method for transmitting the purpose” (DeMaria 145).

America’s Army

Many proponents of serious games see a potentially large market opening up on the horizon. As the legitimacy of serious games begins to catch on, the mainstream will begin to catch on and the world will finally move closer to acceptance of the positive effects of video games. Serious games have already expanded into a number of different genres, adopted by governmental agencies and the private sector alike. Companies such as Canon and Cold Stone Creamery use games to train employees (DeMaria 146). The United States military funded its own serious game, entitled America’s Army (DeMaria 145). The game is intended to teach soldiers

important skills for success in the field after basic training. The game is played collaboratively online with teams performing tasks and missions designed to foster a stronger understanding of teamwork, safety, and survival skills. America’s Army, unlike mainstream first-person shooters such as Call of Duty, does not prevent a player from shooting or killing other players on his

or her own team. The threat of injuring or killing a teammate teaches players to “think before they fire” and be “accountable for their actions” (DeMaria 145). There are many other serious games that have been widely adopted for learning or training purposes including games which teach lawyers courtroom conduct which some law students can play to receive college credits.

Real Lives is a serious game which incorporates a significant amount of statistical data on cultural, economic, governmental, religious, and historical and current events associated with all the countries of the world. Players can select a country or region of the world they would like to explore and create a virtual life there, experiencing, through their game characters, what it is like to Real Lives 2010 live there. Due to the volumes of statistical data upon which the game was developed, the virtual lives depicted in the game are remarkably accurate portrayals of the real-life conditions in each country or region (DeMaria 146).

The Serious Game Initiative has led to other movements in which video games are the primary vehicle for initiating education and change. “Games for Health focuses on games that promote health, healing, and medical training,” and “Games for Change is devoted primarily to supporting games that promote social change, including public policy and politically oriented games” (DeMaria 148-150).

Recent advances in video game technology also address years of criticism that video games prevent adolescents from engaging in physical exercise by confining players to a stationary position for hours on end. Both the Nintendo Wii and Xbox Kinect incorporate physical motion as a means for controlling game-play. Many of the video games released for these systems stress physical fitness and the importance of adopting an active and healthy lifestyle (videogamesforhealthyliving.com). The Wii Fit is a popular exercise game for the Nintendo Wii which offers a variety of different exercise activities, including, yoga, aerobics, and balancing exercises. The game includes a virtual personal trainer as well as a system for tracking individual progress. The Xbox Kinect has revolutionized video game fitness even further through its completely handsfree design. The system features cameras and sensors which detect motion and transfer motion images of the player to the television screen. Your Shape Fitness Evolved was one of the first exercise games released for the Xbox Kinect in late 2010. Through the sophisticated design of the Xbox Kinect, Your Shape Fitness Evolved can take a full body scan of the player and recommend custom exercise programs based on the player’s body type. The game even displays the player on the screen with the instructor while in the act of exercising thanks to the camera on the front of the Xbox Kinect system.

Looking to the Future What Video Game Developers Should Consider Given the powerful effects video games can have on adolescent development and behavior, the potentially lucrative market opening-up for serious games, and the overall benefits video games have on supplementing educational initiatives, mainstream commercial video game developers must identify their roles and responsibilities in the initiation of positive change and the advocacy of video games with purpose and prosocial thematic value.

The Partnership for 21st Century Skills is a group of professionals representing organizations spanning a range of industries including the automotive industry, information technology, telecommunications, broadcast communications, and education.

The group was formed to develop a profile of the skills necessary to be a successful member of society in the 21st century.

Just about every skill on the list, divided into four categories – Life and Career Skills, Learning and Innovation Skills, Information, Media, and Technology Skills, and Core Subjects and 21st Century Themes – can be taught through video games. As a matter of fact, “gamers in business are more sociable and more loyal. They like to win, but they also have the ability to think more strategically and ‘go meta’ to gain perspective on situations” (DeMaria 121). So why, then, is there no involvement in the Partnership on the part of mainstream commercial video game developers? If the big-budget video game development studios focused more of their efforts towards advocating their products and leveraging their powerful effects to influence more

positive changes, the mainstream public impression might shift away from the negative.

Video game producers should set their sights on education as their path to redemption moving forward into the 21st century. Although these studios are profit-driven and therefore must develop their games with entertainment value as their primary focus, they can, however, incorporate secondary educational themes which can function as a supplemental tool used by teachers in school learning.

Such secondary educational themes could quite possibly inspire deeper interests in subjects taught in the classroom when utilized by teachers who identify the lessons in the video games and challenge students to think in-depth about those lessons. Games exhibiting this potential already exist. For instance, Dimenxian is a game which plays much like any other first-person 3D game with a storyline and a movie-like look-and-feel; however, “the principles of its design are all well researched and geared to allow players to achieve the knowledge necessary to pass their basic algebra requirements in school” (DeMaria 122). Scientific subjects have long been stressed in video games such as SimEarth and SimLife, proving that simulation-style games can effectively aid in learning (DeMaria 123). Some games demonstrate potential to teach history. Sid Meier’s Civilization Revolution is a role-playing strategy game in which the player assumes the identity of one of the many historical world leaders available for play in the game.

The player must lead their society to civilization from the Stone Age. They must practice diplomacy, economics and civil engineering, defend against invaders, and facilitate governmental and technological progress. Although the game does not offer an accurate account of historical events – a player assuming the identity of Shaka Zulu can take over the entire world if he or she is up to the challenge – it can inspire interest in historical events and figures while putting many concepts taught in history class to practical use through game-play.

Aside from teaching the traditional subjects in text books, video games can further development in a host of other crucial areas by modeling diversity, tolerance, and human polarities, challenging players to deal with moral and ethical dilemmas, exercising emotional intelligence, and reinforcing or providing practice in good family dynamics and communication (DeMaria 125-128).

Stepping Up the Game What Parents Should Do to Take a More Active Role One of the most important factors in shaping adolescent development and behavior is the involvement of parents who are aware of their children’s activities, informed about the latest trends in pop culture and the media, and, most importantly, active in mediating their children’s consumption of media. Parents can do a lot to prevent the horrible effects researchers such as Anderson and Gentile claim can result from regular video game-playing.

First and foremost, parents should do their research on video game titles. Since most kids rely on parents to buy video games, parents should know which titles their children want to play. In the midst of the Information Age, there is little standing between curiosity and the knowledge to quench that curiosity, so, before making a purchase, parents should exercise some resourcefulness by researching the video game title. Reading reviews and watching game-play trailers online can help parents determine whether or not a specific game title is suitable for their children’s ages and maturity levels. Additionally, video games, much like movies, are required by Federal law to indicate their individual ratings assigned by the Entertainment Software Rating Board (ESRB). ESRB ratings include, Early Childhood (EC), Everyone (E), Everyone 10+ (E10+), Teen (T), Rating Pending (RP), Mature (M), and Adults Only (AO) (Wikipedia.org). Parents can use these ratings to guide their decisions on the appropriateness of games their children wish them to purchase.

Setting clear limits and expectations is paramount in facilitating a positive and healthy game-playing experience for adolescents. Parents should enforce rules which stress responsibilities, for example, all homework and chores must be completed before the child can play video games. Time limits should be strictly enforced as well, for instance, the child is allowed one

hour of video game-play per night on the weekdays and up to four hours per day on the weekends. If parents foster an environment in which video games are a privilege which can be revoked at anytime if responsibilities are not met, children will learn to approach their children’s consumption of media. Parents can do a lot to prevent the horrible effects researchers such as Anderson and Gentile claim can result from regular video game-playing.

First and foremost, parents should do their research on video game titles. Since most kids rely on parents to buy video games, parents should know which titles their children want to play. In the midst of the Information Age, there is little standing between curiosity and the knowledge to quench that curiosity, so, before making a purchase, parents should exercise some resourcefulness by researching the video game title. Reading reviews and watching game-play trailers online can help parents determine whether or not a specific game title is suitable for their children’s ages and maturity levels. Additionally, video games, much like movies, are required by Federal law to indicate their individual ratings assigned by the Entertainment Software Rating Board (ESRB). ESRB ratings include, Early Childhood (EC), Everyone (E), Everyone 10+ (E10+), Teen (T), Rating Pending (RP), Mature (M), and Adults Only (AO) (Wikipedia.org). Parents can use these ratings to guide their decisions on the appropriateness of games their children wish them to purchase.

Setting clear limits and expectations is paramount in facilitating a positive and healthy game-playing experience for adolescents. Parents should enforce rules which stress responsibilities, for example, all homework and chores must be completed before the child can play video games. Time limits should be strictly enforced as well, for instance, the child is allowed one hour of video game-play per night on the weekdays and up to four hours per day on the weekends. If parents foster an environment in which video games are a privilege which can be revoked at anytime if responsibilities are not met, children will learn to approach their game-play responsibly and in moderation. “Suggest that they have responsibilities in life, just like you do, and ask them to imagine what it would be like if you played video games instead of doing what you do to maintain the family, whether it is earning money or maintaining the household. Remind them that they have responsibilities, too, and that the video games are not their primary job in life but rather their leisure-time activitiy” (DeMaria 161).

Encouraging a solid mix of healthy activities aside from video games can greatly help to ensure positive adolescent development in all areas – mental, physical, emotional, and social. Parents should see to it that their children are getting enough physical exercise, perhaps through team sports or outdoor leisure activities – this can also fulfill many of the social interactions integral in developing strong social skills. Parents may even encourage children to take on more chores as a way to earn money for new video games. “Kids know that games cost money, so you can use their desire for more games to motivate them to earn money or do more chores around the house. With a positive attitude, kids will see it as a fair trade where everybody gets something from the deal: they have earned their game, and you have acknowledged the game’s value to them” (DeMaria, 162-163).

Moving Forward What Happens Now? I’ve only scratched the surface here in terms of the positive impact video games can have, not only on adolescent development, but also on the development of adults, families, organizations, educational institutions, nations, and, ultimately, the world. As we forge ahead on our path through the 21st century, one thing is clear – video games are here to stay. Like most new technologies, video games were met with resistance at their inception over 30 years ago. Unfortunately, that resistance still exists today, fueled by misinformation and misconceptions. It is time we begin to look past the potentially negative effects of video games and look to the many benefits they can offer through their immense power – a power we can only harness if we acknowledge it exists.

Sources Cited Anderson, Craig, Douglas Gentile, and Katherine Buckley. Violent Video Game Effects on Children and Adolescents: Theory, Research, and Public Policy. New York: Oxford University Press, 2007. Print.

DeMaria, Rusel. Reset: Changing the Way We Look at Video Games. San Francisco: Berrett-Koehler Publishers, 2007. Print.

“Entertainment Software Rating Board.” Wikipedia.org. Wikipedia, n.d. Web. 30 April 2011 Fleming, Ryan. “Study Claims Violent Video Games Reduce Hostility.” Digitaltrends.com. Digital Trends, 11 August 2010. Web. 20 March 2011.

“The Good and Bad Effects of Video Games.” raisesmartkid.com. raisesmartkid.com, n.d. Web. 20 March 2011.

McHugh, Molly. “Study suggests video games cause mental health problems.” Digitaltrends.com. Digital Trends, 17 January 2011. Web. 20 March 2011.

“The Positive Effects of Video Games.” Video-games-for-healthy-living.com. Video Games for Healthy Living: A comprehensive guide to living peacefully with video games, n.d. Web. 22 March 2011.

Routledge, Clay. “The Social Benefits of Video Gaming: Are there social benefits associated with playing video games?” psychologytoday.com. Psychology Today, 7 June 2010. Web. 20 March 2011.

Š2012 Nicholas Iati All rights reserved.