--Original published at Olivia's College Blog

The increased amount of attention given to violence in the media, particularly video games, is a concern that I fully support. I think that the exposure children are having to the violence portrayed in movies, video games, and social media is toxic because it consumes such a large portion of their time. In moderation, I believe that video games, TV time, and social media use don’t have to be considered completely detrimental to the child. This is not the case when violent media is used in excess. For that reason, I think drawing attention to this growing problem is important for understanding the impacts of early childhood exposure in violent video games.

For children, whose brains have yet to fully develop, over-exposure to the crime, gore, and violence of video games can send an inappropriate message early on. As we learned in our lessons of Piaget’s cognitive developmental theory, children learn through schemas. New information is added to existing schemas or to create new ones altogether, called assimilation and accommodation. The violence and graphic, bloody displays of video games could potentially be very detrimental to the development of a child, because they are receiving that violence and it is being incorporated into their existing beliefs.

I think a permanent ban on violent video games is rather extreme. Maybe one could argue that a child will benefit from light exposure to violence in videogames, since the ‘real world’ will involve crime and other harsh realities. I don’t think we have to resort from banning violent video games altogether; a different approach could be taken. Along with the age recommendations for users of violent video games, there could be age restrictions, like 18+, when purchasing R rated games. As for parents who choose to buy them for their children, the games could include a information packet or demo CD that shows the parent what their child will be exposed to. I think if there continues to be overuse or misuse of violent video games among children, these are ways to restrict the exposure kids have with these games.

--Original published at Alex's Thoughts

B.F. Skinner is a respected psychologist in his own right, and asserted that there is truly no thing as free will. However he came to conclude this, I disagree with his assumption for several reasons. My evidence is that of human expression, ingenuity, and scientific logic.

Expression of emotions has always been an integral part of human culture and the fabric of society itself. While other lower beings such as dogs and cats are capable of expressing emotion, nothing comes close to the means by which humans have been able to portray it. Media, literature, and even language itself have given humans the means to describe and record the way they are feeling about a particular topic at a given time, theoretically to the point where anyone can read it thousands of years after their death. No other creature has come anywhere near that kind of power, especially if it is not recorded in their genes. So while Skinner asserts that free will can merely be attributed to genes and reactions to the environment, I would argue that free will is what drives people to develop forms of expression and art such that they may convey their individual experience to others. If individuals go to the lengths required just to convey the uniqueness of their own experience, is there really no such thing as free will and a sense of individuality that accompanies it?

As for human ingenuity, I would point to the Industrial Revolution. No other creature had the cleverness to invent machines to do work for them, perfect mathematical and chemical sciences, construct manufacturing facilities, and work together to create shining cities from metals and wood. While many organisms create communities and rely on natural materials they can either scavenge or create themselves, no creature had the ingenuity to create the machine lathe, or the steam engine. Why would a creature that has no free will bother to create such oddities when their personal energy would be much more suited to finding or growing food and constructing a shelter out of local materials? Why would our world be so complex today with its interwoven economies and technological marvels when everyone would theoretically be better off if they merely looked out for themselves? In the argument for free will, I say look no further than the plethora of manufactured goods that would not be available to you if humans had no free will like Skinner claimed.

As for the scientific logic portion of my argument, I would like to quote Rene Descartes in saying, “I think, therefore, I am”. If free will can be broken down into basic life functions, what other expressions of free will can be attributed to life functions? Do works of art and cultural significance have anything to do with basic life functions? Does the concept of calculus and abstract mathematics fall under the purview of having no free will? I can personally attest that it takes a lot of willpower and determination to willingly learn the concepts and apply them. If I can think about myself as an individual, distinguish myself from others, and hold abstract ideas in my mind with no basis in the absolute reality that I experience, then apply those concepts to change my reality, how can I not have free will? The basic idea behind Skinner’s claims were that animals without free will learn to survive and sustain themselves. If that were the case with humans, why do we spend so much energy conveying ourselves, creating machines when our energy would be better suited to sustaining basic life functions, and dreaming of abstract concepts that have little basis in reality? One could claim that our end goal would ultimately be to increase physical comfort with all these innovations, but where does the creativity for such ideas come from if not a being with free will? Especially a being with the will to create their surroundings out of an initially inhospitable and dangerous environment. As such, I would argue that free will is the purest expression of human ingenuity and creativity.

--Original published at Allison's Psych Blog

Video games are becoming such a huge part of children’s lives, at an even younger age as years go by. And with new technology comes new concepts within the games, including new and more violence. Obviously, if the children are younger, they can become influenced very easily by violence that they see in front of them on a daily basis. But I don’t personally believe that the violence in video games is causing children to become more violent. Children might think that the violence they see is normal and okay, but I don’t believe they are acting on it. For a child to want to sword fight because they’ve seen it, or even pretend to shoot guns, is completely normal, and I believe the only amount of violence acted upon. Children aren’t beating their friends or even trying to kill them. I don’t think violence should be banned within video games, but maybe not include the excessive amount in every game. I do think the people planning on banning these types of video games and scenarios have their mind in the right place, I just do not see a need to rid of them completely.

--Original published at Zach Nawrocki's Blog

The increase in violent video games has been obvious, as there seems to be a new first-person shooter game coming out every month. Personally, my brother and I both grew up playing these more violent games and neither of us became violent people as a result of playing these games.

As most people know the first few years of a kids life and what they are taught or shown in that period of time will define how they will act in the future. Personally, I don’t see a bunch of 5-year-old kids playing Black Ops. Nevertheless, even though there are age restrictions on games that have violence in them many kids under that age will be playing them, I would say kids that are around 13 playing games like Black Ops. I feel as though kids at this age that are playing games like this have developed their brain enough to realize the difference between a video game and the real world and have been taught that violence like that is not okay. There is a difference however between kids getting more violent while actually playing the game such as kids “rage quitting” and having that violence persist after the game has been turned off. I feel as though once the game has been turned off most children understand that it is a game and will quickly get over it. I do not believe that violent first-person shooter games should be banned but just have better parental control about what their kids are playing. At a certain age when they believe their kids can handle the game and understand that it is just a game, then allow them to play those types of games.

Overall, I feel as though violent first-person shooter games do not have a major impact on weather or not a kid will become more violent due to these games. I think with proper control by the parents that at a certain age when kids understand its just a game should they be allowed to play them.

--Original published at Maddy Vingom's PSY105 Blog

The increase in violence in the media has piqued the concern in many Americans, especially when it comes to video games. Growing up I played video games with my siblings, most of which contained some form of violence. None of us became violent people as a result of these games, because my parents took proper precautions to ensure we knew the consequences of our actions if we mimic the behavior in real life. In addition to this, my parents also monitored what we were doing on these games and our behavior afterword. If they believed they were inappropriate for us they would confiscate them until they thought were mentally prepared.

I believe that it is the responsibility of the parents to determine whether or not their child has the mental capacity for violent video games, like my parents did. If a child is incapable of understanding the consequences of violence in real life, they should not be given permission to play violent games. Video game companies are required to place age limits for purchasing violent games and stores are required abide by the rules and will not sell games to children if they are under the age limit. The only option for obtaining these games for the child is if their parent or another adult buys it for them, ultimately making it the parents responsibility.

Overall, I believe that the regulations put in place ensure that the correct age group has access to these types of video games are very beneficial. When video games are used responsibly violence is not an issue.   

--Original published at Ally'sCollegeBlog

I never grow up playing video games, unless Wii counts. I do, however, see how violent some games are and it is scary that kids are able to access such inappropriate content. I do not think that every child who plays say Black Ops, will grow up to become an aggressive adult, but, on the other hand, I do not see any value in those types of video games.

There are age restrictions for purchase of certain video games, and there are the warnings of ’17+’ on the package, but that does not stop preteens and young children from playing. It is very surprising to me as well that parents would allow their child to play such violent games for hours on end.

I do not want violent video games to be banned though, because I believe that at a certain age, you can be exposed to that type of inappropriate content. At what age though? I would not want my eleven year old sister to be playing a non- age appropriate video game, but at a certain age, I think she will be able to make her own decisions on what she does.

As an adult, you are able to make decisions between right and wrong. You understand that murder and theft are wrong and not accepted by society. A young kid, does not know that. They grow up being exposed to a fake reality which is not conducive to their well being.

--Original published at Victoria's Psych Blog

I agree with Skinner’s assertion of operant conditioning is a powerful influence on free will. Humans have always been social creatures and surrounded by other influences. The minute we are born, we are under everyone else’s influence. Children are influenced by parenting styles, parent opinions, education, tv shows and books read to them at night. I believe that children are raised to be conditioned to the world views and rules. They are very vulnerable when they are infants and throughout development. That is nature. And as they are conditioned through parenting and other influences, they learn doing chores leads to cookies and biting leads to timeouts. The conditioning either sticks with them for the rest of their life or they choose to rebel against it. Either way, they are influenced to be on either of those paths. I personally have always grown up with my father teaching me that we are all conditioned to be the perfect citizens. He says that society always pushes you into society’s wants. Society wants to you to pay taxes, get married, have kids, own a house and buy stuff you might not need. Since I was raised with that viewpoint, I was influenced by parenting. I also feel influenced by my education and social media. I graduated from a school district that stressed going to college since I was seven. Social media influences all of us to want perfect picture lives and bodies have to be thin. Why are we conditioned to want these things?

--Original published at Voltage Blog

I grew up into a gaming family. I had three older brothers, all of them loved playing games. I could never play any games my parents deemed too violent, but I could watch my brothers play them. It was always a weird thing in my mind. As I got older I questioned my mother’s method behind this as to why I was not able to play such games with them, but was able to watch them. I think that violent games should be targeted towards older people. Younger kids would not be able to distinguish between real life and fantasy since their brains are not as developed yet. I think they will grow up with some more violent behavior, but not enough to commit dangerous acts.

I do not think that violent video games should be banned permanently. I believe parents should do a better job restricting access to such games with too much adult content. Companies and retail stores can only do so much to restrict access to these games, which leaves family and friends at fault for granting such to the younger generations. Violent games help relieve some built up anger in people who do not have ways of expressing their emotions in other ways.

--Original published at Ariana's Blog

Violent video games have always been a debated issue. Many children learn behaviors at a very young age. Violent video games with first person shooters and blood can teach the child unwanted behaviors at a young age. If they play these violent video games and learn from them, they may become more violent as they grow older. With that being said, I do not think that violent video games should be banned. If a child is young, he/she should not own those games or the parent should closely monitor what video games the child is playing. There are non-violent video games that are just as fun and more appropriate for a younger age. I also think that the amount of time playing these video games have an impact as well. The longer they spend playing these games, the more exposed they are to the high levels of violence. 

As the child grows older and matures, they have a better sense of reality and are able to make their own decisions. At an appropriate age, I think that the games a child chooses to play is his/her choice and they should be old enough to handle it. I would say an appropriate age is 14-15 years old (freshman in high school) because they are becoming adults, know it is just a game and will not repeat the actions they see in the video games. Even though there are age limits on the games, I feel that parents do not enforce them enough, and they should. 

--Original published at MaddieHinson

I think there are valid points on both sides of the “Violent video game” debacle. On one hand, I can see how if a child is constantly playing violent video games where there is shooting and killing people that it could be a concern they bring that into the real world. Kids pick up a lot from media, and a lot of times they act like images they see on TV, so why wouldn’t video games make them act more violently? Also, video games almost always allow the players a “Start over” option or have multiple lives where they can redo and try again. To me, if a child isn’t taught the lesson where we don’t have do-over’s or extra lives in real life, it could be a potentially dangerous situation. I can see why many parents wouldn’t want their kids to be exposed to such violence as well.

However, I believe that a violent person did not just learn to be violent through the work of technology. That person had to have other bad influences in their life as well. I think having a child play violent video games could be an okay parenting decision as long as they are being taught the right lessons in real life. A lot of times when I was really young and I watched a violent movie or one that involved things like drugs, my parents would have a discussion about what I Just watched to explain to me the difference between the movie and real life. They would use the examples in the movie, like doing cocaine, and explain how that can mess up your life, and make sure I understood or asked if I had any questions about it. I think that as long as the parent is involved in the child’s life and is making sure that they are learning the right lessons that it is okay to view violent movies or play violent video games.

I don’t think that banning violent video games would have a positive effect. For one, just because something is banned, does not mean that it is not obtainable. I’m sure it would just make prices of already violent games or ones made in other countries skyrocket. Also, I wouldn’t be sure how it could be controlled. Would the police enter homes and raid houses randomly to make sure there isn’t any violent games? I feel like that is a waste of time and resources.