Are Video Games to Blame, When It Comes to Children's Violence and Aggression?

Are video games to blame, when it comes to children's violence and aggression?

Video games have had a main impact on how children and adults pass their spare time. However, the first stage of technological development or innovation of video games was uncomplicated, simple geometric forms in design and decorative shapes, which could be handled and cause to function by the player. Consequently, each invention of video games employs modern technologies, which extends to more exciting graphics and practicality. Now a new study suggests virtual violence in these games may make kids more aggressive and violent in real life.

With these innovative technologies, there appears to be practical violent behaviour and situations. Also with every latest invention of video games the world populace spend more of their spare time and cash on them. The question is do these games make these kids more violent?

Nevertheless, the sudden increase of video games has aroused public interest, thereby, being curious about the information conveyed or area of interest of the games. In relation to this, the most important worry of video games is violence and aggressive actions between real human beings. Is the most modern invention of video games being practical that the course of reasoning aimed at demonstrating truth or falsehood between the techniques of representing the real world by computer program and video games has really been indistinct? Some parents do admit that their children who were exposed to more video game violence did become more aggressive over time than other kids that had not played these games.

The increase in high-school violence or aggressive acts has been blamed on violent video games, with the most destructive being the shooting at one of the American schools in Colorado. This gunfire aroused a sensible alarm that violent video games acts physically on the aggression of teenagers and growing teens. In line with this, aggression or violent behaviour is very broad and can be relevant to and control huge number of teens character and behaviours. After that incident many of these video games have called for concern on our society. The video game industries even put signs like "Real life violence" and not recommended for kids under the age of 12". On the other hand, Connor, Steingard, Cunningham, Anderson, and Meloni (2004) clearly characterized two categories of violence or aggression which are reactive violence and proactive violence. Reactive violence is an aggravated, protective reaction to a menace or aggravation. Proactive violence is this category of an aggressive act is an intentional action that is influenced by external stimulus that strengthens or weakens the behaviour and is generally a way of accomplishing hoped goal.

With the current revitalisation and curiosity about video games in the precedent years, investigation on the focus of video games was negligible. There were hardly any association between video games and violence or aggressive acts, but with the introduction of modern innovation in the recent production of games, several violence and aggressive acts have been linked to video games, thereby motivating conflicting results. Like in the case of Dylan Klebold, and Eric Harris who murdered 13 kids in his school of Colorado. Although nothing is for certain as to why the boys did what they did, it was found during their investigation that these boys played the video game "Doom", a game licensed by the U.S. military to train soldiers to effectively kill. This may have served as training before their attempted murders.

Accordingly, Dominick (1984) discovered that the number of video games that teens engaged in had a positive link with aggression among lower level male students. However, Gibb, Bailey, Lambirth, and Wilson (1983) detected no relation in an extensive research of developing adolescent aged between 12 and 30. Another research by Lin & Leper, (1987) discovered a link between use of video games and teachers' evaluations of violence (Lin & Leper, 1987). On account of the contradictory consequences of these detailed critical inspections, no decisive links could be described. Most collection of facts from which conclusions may be drawn seemed to explain a convincing relationship involving