Children suffering from problems that are psychological in nature need to be addressed and conventional methods can be a little difficult to administer on young children. Video games offer up as a useful tool in administering psychotherapy. In these cases where children need help, video games can help facilitate therapeutic relationships, help access and evaluate cognitive abilities and help break down any walls with lack of familiarity that might have been built up during the therapy sessions (Ceranoglu, 2010, pg.3). A study by Tobias Greitemeyer and Silvia Osswald came to the result that video games can actually promote and foster pro-social behaviour. The researchers acknowledge in their study that perhaps aggressive tendencies may be fished out by wiring a child to violent video games for a prolonged time but what about the opposite? Would focusing the child on to a pro-social game foster pro-social attitude? (Greitmeyer, Osswald, 2010, pg.212). The research found that playing pro-social games did indeed increase tendencies to act more social. In the experiment, after the participants completed playing one of four random games, either two social games, one neutral or one aggressive game, they had to fill out a survey. At some point the experimenter would spill a large box of pencils and the study found the candidates who played the pro-social game were
more likely to help the experimenter pick up the pencils as opposed to those who played the aggressive game (Greitmeyer et al. 2010. pg.215). The study showed that essentially the video game controversy is not so black and white because video games cannot be solely demonized for corrupting morals and fostering violent tendencies in children if they can actually do the exact opposite and possibly magnify and project the pro-social tendencies in children. In total the number of sources I researched for this paper is 11. This consisted of 5 studies, all from scholarly journals and 6 articles from popular sources. In my comparison between the two source categories, I definitely noticed several differences between the two sources. The main discrepancies have to do with the linguistic element, the stance which the sources take and how the sources come off in their respective stance. In terms of the language used, as expected the scholarly sources had a very clinical approach to their point. They were all written very formal and concise with a clear objective laid out. Three of the scholarly sources referenced: “The Good, The Bad and the Ugly: A Meta- analytical Review of Positive and Negative Effects of Violent Games”, “Violent Video Games Prime both Aggressive and Positive Cognitions” and “Longitudinal Effects of Violent Video Games on Aggression in Japan and the United States” took a stance for the most part that supported the notion that video games can elicit violent behaviours in youth. The language used in the articles was objective and consisted of a very methodical and scientific angle. The same can be said for the other two scholarly sources: “Effects of Prosocial Video Games on Prosocial
You've reached the end of your free preview.
Want to read all 14 pages?
- Winter '13
- Video game controversy, Christopher Ferguson, Columbine High School massacre