Running head: LEVELING UP 1

Leveling Up: An Analysis of the Effects of Video Games on Adolescents

Zachary D. Phillips

First Colonial High School

LEVELING UP 2

Abstract

This paper discusses the several various beneficial and negative effects of video games on the

youth and adolescents. The author begins by examining the history of video game controversy

culminating with the modern concern over video games and safety. Apart from the effects that

video games have on the players, the author also explores the concern of parents stemming from

recent violence purportedly caused by video games. The author references the Heath High

School mass shooting of 1997 briefly to express the link between video games and parental

concern for public safety. The author also discusses how possible regulation and oversight of

video games has the potential to infringe on first amendment rights of the video game industry as

well as minors. Educational and societal applications of video game principles are also discussed

and how to properly apply these principles, there must be a maximization of benefits offered by

video games. Finally, the author concludes with a discussion over how to best maximize the

effects of video games for adolescent development.

Keywords: video games, effects, concern, adolescents, applications

Leveling Up: An Analysis on the Effects of Video Games on Adolescents

LEVELING UP 3

On November 29, 1972, Atari released the first massively popular video arcade game

PONG. The purpose of the game: to hit a small white pixel back and forth between two players.

Although no one would have expected it, this release would be the first in a long line of steps in

the evolution of video games to the controversial entertainment medium we know today.

Although early video games may seem simple and even primitive compared to today’s

boundary-pushing industry, each iteration would prove more and more controversial for various

reasons. Four years after the release of PONG, another game, Death Race, was pulled from

shelves because of its content. The purpose of Death Race: to hit as many “gremlins” with your

car as possible. According Steve L. Kent, people were upset that the game included graphic

details whenever you hit one of the monsters, such as a sound bite and a tombstone (“A

Timeline,” n.d.).

In four years, little had changed in the technology; it was still a black and white, pixelated

game, with very “low-fi” graphics. Yet, in that short time, people saw the ability of video games

to portray violence grow to the point that they needed to remove it from the shelves. In the

course of around 40 years, several controversies similar to that of Death Race would arise out of

the evolving capabilities of video games along with their growing presence in households. As

technology evolves, games such as Doom, Postal, and Grand Theft Auto evolved alongside it and

pushed the envelope of what could be digitally emulated without repercussion. However, people

weren’t only concerned with the content these games were producing, but with how it affected

their children.

On December 1, 1997, Michael Carneal perpetrated one of the first mass shootings at

Heath High School. In a subsequent civil suit, Jack Thompson filed suit against several video

game companies citing their games as part of the reason Carneal committed this act. Since the
LEVELING UP 4

emergence of school shootings and other acts of mass violence, many studies have attempted to

concretize the link between video games and real world violence, arriving at mixed results.

While this is a legitimate concern of parents and members of the international community alike,

this is not all video games have to offer. While a large portion of the scientific community has

attempted to either prove or disprove the link between video games and violence, there has also

been a large portion dedicated to exploring positive effects that video games offer youths.

However, because of the recent polarization of the issue that has taken place over the past few

decades, there has been little practical application of the positive effects of video games in the

real world. The negative public attitude towards video games and the video game industry

devalues the potential positive effects offered to adolescents and teenagers by emphasizing the

relationship between violent content and real world aggression.

Possible Effects

There has been a distinct increase in the availability of video games that has accompanied

the recent increase in popularity of the industry. As more and more people engage in some form

of gaming, there have been multiple studies done to explore the effects that these forms of

interactive media have on the actions and behavior of children and adolescents. These studies

and their results can be grouped into two main categories: Positive and Negative.

Positive Effects

Although video games are traditionally viewed as a distraction, there are several positive

effects that stem from video game play. Primarily, video gameplay has been shown to have

positive effects on two areas: problem solving and short term attention.
LEVELING UP 5

The problem solving ability of the player. One of the main areas of benefit is in the

problem solving skills of the player. It has been theorized that the complex reasoning and

judgement skills necessitated by video games develops a greater ability to problem solve in the

players when compared to their non-gaming peers. This effect was explored by Teena

Willoughby, professor of Psychology at Brock University, and graduate researcher Paul Adachi

in their recent study that detailed the self-reported effects that video games had on problem

solving and academics. Willoughby and Adachi’s study centered around a group of students

ranging in age from 9 to 13 years old. Students were then told to play varying amounts of

strategic and action-centered video games and report the effects these games had on their

problem solving ability. As reported in the study, students reported a significant increase in their

problem solving skills after having played strategic video games, and saw an increase in problem

solving from all-around general gameplay (Adachi & Willoughby, 2012).

This increase in problem solving was further explored in the same study by applying its

principle to academics. The study begins by drawing a link between problem solving skills and

academic grades, explaining that greater problem solving skills correlate with higher grades over

time (D’Zurilla and Sheedy as cited in Adachi & Willoughby, 2012). It is then explained that,

although there is a reported link between problem solving and video games, there existed no

direct empirical link between video game play and grades. Despite the lack of a direct link,

Adachi and Willoughby reported that playing strategic video games tended to indirectly predict

higher academic performance (2012). The lack of a direct link between gameplay and academics

is not the only pitfall of this study, however. One limitation of this study is the choice to base

data off of self-reported effects. The study’s empirical results were determined based off of

adolescents’ abilities to report any perceived change in abilities. The question of whether
LEVELING UP 6

adolescents can be relied upon to accurately judge their performance is one raised by Adachi and

Willoughby (2012) in the conclusion of the study, which leaves room for possible refutation of

their findings.

While Adachi and Willoughby measure the direct link between video games and problem

solving, Gabe Zichermann explores the possible reasons that games trigger these reactions in the

brain. Zichermann, a “gamification” advocate with a Bachelor of Integrate Science degree in

Human Intelligence, Gifted Kids, and Statistics, explains that the learning process itself

stimulates the growth of grey matter in the brain, and that “fluid intelligence,” otherwise known

as problem solving, is greatly increased through the implementation of five concepts: seeking

novelty, challenging yourself, creative thinking, perseverance, and networking. He then explains

that all five of these key concepts can be found in the most successful video games. He

postulates that video games allow for better problem solving skills because they provide a

constant learning curve to the player (Zichermann, 2011). When analyzing the construction of

video games, the most successful games are those that offer the perfect challenge-to-reward

ratio. Games that offer a constant challenge to the player allow for a greater learning advantage,

giving gamers the ability to resolve conflicts concepts faster and more efficient than non-gamers

as evidenced in the Adachi-Willoughby study (2012).

The short term attention of the player. The same study by Adachi and Willoughby

(2012) also proposed that the attention skills of students would be benefited through gameplay.

While not the primary focus of that particular study, this claim is corroborated by a study done

by Dr. Daphne Bavelier, a professor at the University of Geneva and Cognitive Neuroscience

researcher, researching the effects of video games on the brain. In her TED Talk, Your brain on

video games, Bavelier cycles through numerous purported claims about the effects of
LEVELING UP 7

videogames on attention. She begins with the classic claim of how video games worsen the

eyesight of the player, and quickly dismantles the claim with evidence from her lab studies.

Through multiple experiments conducted on individuals who had and hadn’t played video

games, Dr. Bavelier concluded that gamers were better able to disseminate finer detail amongst

clutter as well as several different layers of grey color shades when compared to non-gamers

(Bavelier, 2012). Dr. Bavelier then discusses the direct effect video games have on the attention

of the player. Conducting similar comparative studies between gamers and non-gamers, Dr.

Bavelier was able to conclude that the average gamer has considerably better attention when

compared to non-gamers. This is evident in her experiments concerning multi-tasking, in which

she concluded that gamers are more apt to switch their focus of attention quicker than their non-

gaming associates, and concerning objects of attention, in which it was found that the average

gamer can hold around three or four more items in focus when compared to non-gamers. In

general, Dr. Bavelier observed considerable changes in three areas on the brains of gamers in

comparison to a non-gamer control: the parietal lobe, frontal lobe, and anterior cingulate. These

areas of the brain help to regulate different aspects of attention, and each was found to be

considerably more efficient in subjects who played video games (Bavelier, 2012). These findings

were then applied to another group of people tasked with observing object rotation. These people

were presented three dimensional shapes and structures in one image that would appear in a

rotated form amongst a set of four other images. The people were then tasked to correctly

identify which one of the images in the set of four was the rotated version of the original

shape/structure. From the results, Dr.Bavelier was able to conclude that playing action games,

distributed in average-length sessions, allowed for better interpretation of the rotated shapes

when compared with the results from people who did not play games. This experiment was again
LEVELING UP 8

conducted with the same group of games some time after the initial test to measure how long

these effects last, and once again this test group was able to correctly identify the rotated

geometric shape more often than control groups, proving that these effects last long after the

initial dose of gaming (Bavelier, 2012).

Negative Effects

In contrast with the positive effects that stem from video gameplay, there are also several

negative effects that stem from exposure to video games. Primarily, these consist of aggressive

tendencies, long term attention, and addiction.

Demonstration of aggressive behavior by the player. The negative effect most

primarily discussed resulting from video game play is the development of aggressive behavior.

In a recent article published in the journal Nature Reviews Neuroscience, several experts in

cognitive science, psychiatry, and psychology, including Dr. Bavelier, discuss the effects that

video games have on brain development. In this study, Dr. Bavelier and C.Shawn Green,

Associate Professor of Psychology at the University of Wisconsin, discuss how video games

have potentially negative effects on the brain (Bavelier and Green, 2011). They state that video

games, while not wholly capable of producing violent behaviour by themselves, have the

potential to trigger aggressive behavior when linked with other troubling circumstances such as

mental conditions. This is also seconded by Dr. Douglas Gentile, Professor of Psychology at

Iowa State University, who also commented on the issue later in the article. In his segment of the

discussion, Dr. Gentile describes how video games allow people to practice violent behavior, and

how video games increase attributes like desensitization towards violence. He explains that,

“Whatever we practice repeatedly affects the brain, and if we practice aggressive ways of

thinking, feeling and reacting, then we will get better at those” (Gentile, 2011).
LEVELING UP 9

The long term attention of the player. Video games not only have the potential to stir

aggression, but to delay attention as well. Dr. Michael Merzenich, Professor Emeritus and

neuroscientist at the University of California, San Francisco, explains that fast paced video

games are connected to the development of ADHD in the player. This ADHD, he stipulates, then

transfers over into school work and other “slow-paced” activities (Merzenich, 2011). This

relationship between video games and seemingly poor attention causes parents to wonder how

children could have excellent short term attention, especially when playing video games, but

then lack focus in school? As Caroline Miller, director of the Child Mind Institute, explains,

ADHD isn’t the source of the problem. While there is an attention problem created by video

games, it isn’t wholly ADHD, rather it is the speed of the material (Miller, n.d.). In fact, Dr.

Natalie Weder states that, “there is no evidence whatsoever that TV or video games cause

ADHD.” Dr. Weder then explains that TV shows and video games, citing SpongeBob as an

example, do not allow for gaps in thought, and therefore have a special appeal to people

predisposed to ADHD. She explains that the appeal comes from the content of video games:

there is always something happening on the screen at all times, and missing it could mean failure

(Dr. Natalie Weder as cited in Miller, n.d.). Despite contrasting with Dr. Merzenich’s claim that

video games cause ADHD, it does support his claim that fast paced nature of the game causes

disposition towards slow paced activities.

Video game addiction suffered by the player. Another considerable effect of video

games is possible addiction. While it must be said that there is no conclusive decision on whether

video games could constitute an addictive substance (Bavelier and Green, 2011), there is

connection between the pathological desire to play video games, and other more common

addictions. According to Dr. Doug Hyun Han, Professor of Psychiatry at Chung-Ang University,
LEVELING UP 10

and Dr. Perry Renshaw, Professor of Psychiatry at the University of Utah, there is some

connection between gaming and addiction. Most conclusively, the part of the brain activated by

online gaming is the same part of the brain triggered by drug addiction, and similar symptoms

are seen between other addictions and online gaming addiction, with gaming addicts often

struggling to quit or even focus on anything other than video games (Han and Renshaw, 2011).

The connection between gaming and other addiction has also been supported by Dr. Merzenich,

who likens video game addiction to substance abuse, stating directly that 20% of all gamers

could be technically classified as addicted (Merzenich, 2011).

Perspectives

While the possible effects alone allow for a better understanding of how video game play

affects the individual directly, the societal effects branch much farther than the sole individual.

The issue of video games has many implications on society. There are two key perspectives,

aside from the player, that are affected by this issue: the parents and the video game industry.

These contrasting perspectives will provide a general overview of how society is affected in part

by concerns raised by video games.

Parents

As many people who play video games are children and adolescents, Parents appear as

one of the most concerned groups when it comes to the discussion about video games. Parents

are primarily concerned with how children emulate the content they are exposed to in video

games.

Emulation of violent behavior. Since the 1997 shooting at Heath High School, the

connection between video games and mass shootings have been touted time and time again.

Being that one of the largest concerns of parents is the health and safety of their children, it is
LEVELING UP 11

understandable why video games affect parents almost as much as the player. The concern for

parents largely arises out of mimicking controversial content and what effect that might have on

the player. Because video games require constant involvement from the player, games that

reflect violent or criminal behavior are thought to impose these types of acts upon children.

According to Doctor Victor Strasburger, Distinguished Professor of Pediatrics emeritus at the

University of Mexico, and author of several American Academy of Pediatrics’ policy statements

on children and media, nine out of ten video games approved for children 10 and older contain

some sort of violent behavior. He lists specific games such as “RapeLay,” “School Shooter,” and

“Manhunt” that mimic sexual assault, school shootings, and glorified murder respectively, as

examples of video games emulating graphic, disturbing content for players to recreate

(Strasburger, Jordan, & Donnerstein, 2012). The growing popularity of video games such as

“Grand Theft Auto,” which centers around theft, murder, and other criminal activity, generates a

cause for concern for parents who believe that simulating murder, shooting, rape, etc. in the

virtual world will cause their children to emulate these activities in the real world. Children,

especially those at a young age, are very receptive to behaviors emulated on screens. One study,

published by the Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology, examined 240 preschool and

kindergarten students over the course of a year as they were exposed to superheroes in the media.

The study surveyed the children’s behaviors and activities and found that those who were closer

to the superheroes (those more engaged with watching the shows, etc.) were more likely to

emulate aggressive behavior such as kicking, name-calling, etc (Coyne et. al, 2017). Despite the

young age, this study shows that all forms of media have a strong influence over children.

Similar to the concept of media influence, a study published by the American Psychological

Association found that there is more to video games than just manipulating a controller. After
LEVELING UP 12

testing various groups of people of various cultures, ages, sexes, etc. on their cognitive and

emotional (empathic response) to video game play, the study concluded that you’re “not just

moving your hand on a joystick…[you’re interacting] with the game psychologically and

emotionally,” (Nelson et. al, 2010). There is a distinct connection between children’s actions and

behaviors and what they are exposed to through various forms of media. Taking this a step

further, it is shown that video games have a distinct connection with the player that could go

further beyond that of other forms of media. As was previously addressed by Dr. Gentile, the

repetitive nature of video games, and the link they have with the player, opens the door for a

large possibility for people to emulate the behavior demonstrated in video games. It is this

possibility that most concerns parents, and it is this concern that leads to public policy. In

response to public demand for some form of regulation. Debates over regulation of content led to

the creation of the Entertainment Software Rating Board (ESRB) in 1994. The ESRB describes

itself as the, “non-profit, self-regulatory body that assigns ratings for video games and apps so

parents can make informed choices” (About ESRB, n.d.). The ESRB currently rates games on a

scale of E-M. The specific regulations are as follows:

● E (Everyone)-the content is suitable for all ages

● E 10+ (Everyone Ten and Up)-the content is suitable for everyone ages 10 and up

● T (Teen)-The content is only suitable for teenagers

● M (Mature)-The content is only suitable for ages 17 and up, but can be purchased

with adult supervision

● AO (Adults only)-The content is only suitable for people ages 18 and up and can

only be purchased by people in that age range

LEVELING UP 13

The ESRB aims to self regulate the video game industry and prevent minors from accessing

content by mistake or without parental consent. While the ESRB rankings have been in use since

1994, recently there have been discussions on whether this form of self regulation goes far

enough to protect minors from inappropriate content. Specifically, there has been an increase in

the proposal of legislation in the past two decades, especially in the early 2000’s (Legislative

search results, n.d.). This increase in government action has helped to ease the minds of some

parents, but brings about another issue: freedom of speech/expression.

The Video Game Industry

While parents are concerned about the safety of their children, the video game industry is

not unaffected by rules and regulations put in place to regulate video games. While video game

regulation may aim to protect the safety of minors, it often is poised to infringe on the free

speech of game developers and content creators.

Free speech and its relation to video games. While some feel that video games pose a

safety concern to the player and those in society, the actual industry behind the production and

sale of video games is affected in a drastically different way. The primary concern of the video

game industry revolves around whether video games can be protected under free speech. The

issue is simple: is violence, such as that emulated by video games, protected as free speech and,

if so, should it be accessible to minors in the ways it currently is now? It is questions such as

these that lead to policies such as H.R. 69, also known as, “The Protect Children from Video

Game Sex and Violence Act of 2003.” This act, introduced by Representative Joe Baca of

California, aimed to prohibit the sale and rental of adult video games to minors, as well as fines

on those who fail to comply with their guidelines (The Protect, 2003). While this may sound like

an open and closed case of the government taking a stand to help children and parents, Adam
LEVELING UP 14

Thierer, former director of telecommunications studies at the Cato Institute, explains that action

like this may stand to violate free speech. In an article concerning the relationship between

government regulation and video games, Thierer explains how if the ESRB were to abandon

voluntary ratings due to fines imposed on content, it would open the door for government rating

and regulation, possibly forcing creators to stay within legal production boundaries. The possible

rating and limiting of sales of video games would open the door for violations of First

Amendment freedoms of speech and expression, as this could be easily seen as restriction of

content similar to if the government wanted to regulate the content of books or magazines.

Unlike H.R. 669, which has sat in introduction before the house since 2004, there are recent

Supreme Court cases that revolve around the limiting of sales of video games. One such case is

2011’s Brown v. Entertainment Merchants Association. This case dealt with the implementation

of a California law that prohibited the sale/rental of video games deemed inappropriate to

minors. The California law in question was ruled in violation of the First Amendment by both

the Federal District Court as well as by the Ninth Circuit Court. When brought before the

Supreme Court of the United States, they ruled that video games qualified for First Amendment

protections on the same basis of literary works, movies, and music on the grounds that they

convey ideas and thought in similar ways to those mediums, as well as through methods

distinctive to the industry. Because the Supreme Court determined that video games can be

protected under the First Amendment, the restriction on the sale of video games in California

was struck down (Brown v. Entertainment Merchants Association, 2011). Not only does

regulation potentially violate the free speech of the video game industry, but the free speech of

adolescents as well. In the 2004 Supreme Court Case Ashcroft v. the American Civil Liberties

Union (ACLU), the ACLU sued the federal government after the passage of the Child Online
LEVELING UP 15

Protection Act (COPA). The COPA was a federal law passed in 1998 that restricted minor’s

access to material the government deemed inappropriate for them to view (Child Online, 1998).

In the actual case, the ACLU argued that the act violated first amendment right to free speech for

minors. After much deliberation, the Supreme Court determined that the COPA’s restrictions,

not being tailored strictly enough, were likely to violate the free speech protections of minors, as

there are more effective ways of preventing access to inappropriate material (Ashcroft v. ACLU,

2004). The restrictions proposed on the video game industries, such as H.R. 669 and disputed

California law, are similar in nature to the COPA disputed in Ashcroft v. ACLU, as both restrict

minors’ access to content. The possible restriction of access to content poses a threat to the free

speech of adolescents by restricting their access to new thoughts and ideas perpetuated in video

games.

Applications

Despite the varied direct benefits and drawbacks to video gameplay, there have been

distinct applications in several fields where video games have proven beneficial.

The Educational Benefits of Video Games

One common application of video games in the real world is in education. There have

been several studies and experiments that aimed to show how different aspects of video games

could benefit the education of adolescents. One such experiment was that done by Ananth Pai.

Pai, a 3rd grade teacher, is credited with replacing the standard curriculum of his class with, “off-

the-shelf gaming activities.” Contrary to expectation, Mr. Pai’s class improved greatly in reading

level having gone from below a 3rd grade level to a mid-4th grade reading level in around 18

weeks (Zichermann, 2011). Gaming was also found to help predict higher grade scores through

their increased problem solving ability. In the study done by Adachi and Willoughby, they found
LEVELING UP 16

a distinct link between video games and greater problem solving abilities. This was then

compared to the distinct link between problem solving abilities and grade prediction done in the

same study. Despite there being no distinct direct link between video games and higher grades,

Adachi and Willoughby showed that the indirect link between video games and grades, through

the shared factor of greater problem solving abilities, shows great promise, and that playing

strategy games over a greater course of time has a greater chance of increasing grade level due to

greater problem solving abilities (Adachi and Willoughby, 2012). While it is easy to understand

that there is a relationship between video games and education, it is better to understand why.

Writer and “tech philosopher” Dr. Tom Chatfield explains in a recent TED Talk that video

games change the way that students engage in the classroom. Video games, through their various

interactive methods, allow for students to better break down specific curricular tasks as well as

reward constant effort in the classroom (Chatfield, 2010). One major connection between

Dr.Chatfield’s exploration of video games in school and Ananth Pai’s use of video games in the

classroom is the fact that it makes learning multiplayer. When asked about the use of video

games in their curriculum, Pai’s students responded with two simple phrases: learning is fun, and

learning is multiplayer (Merzenich, 2011). The use of video games in the classroom not only

engages singular students, but collective groups to bring the class together, something also

discussed by Dr.Chatfield. Despite the link between video games and education, there has yet to

be distinct effective use of the medium in standard curriculum. According to Bavelier and Green

(2011), current attempts at educational video games are nothing more than a repetitious series of

educational flash cards. While this is a distinct attempt at merging the field of education with

video games, it fails to fully harness the benefits video games offer to education. To truly

maximize the potential video games offer education, there needs to be an effective balance
LEVELING UP 17

between the entertainment value of games as well as academic content (Bavelier and Green,

2011).

The Societal Benefits of Video Games

Not only can video games help to restructure the education system, but society as well. In

his TED Talk, 7 ways games reward the brain, Dr. Tom Chatfield explores the reasons why

games are so captivating, and then applies these principles to other aspects of society. First, he

discusses how video games are able to captivate the player through their reward system. By

maximizing the ambition of the player with the delight of the player, video games are able to

captivate the player for long periods of time. When the player is rewarded for every action, both

long and short term goals, it encourages the player to give effort. This system of rewarding effort

can be applied to real world through goal setting and rewarding efforts. For example, Dr.

Chatfield expresses how goal setting and group motivation techniques learned from video games

could be applied to a business setting in order to promote conservation and efficiency (Chatfield,

2010). Video games have the capability to restructure the way we view effort not only in school,

but in society by shifting the focus away from lack of engagement, to an emphasis on rewarding

effort. According to Dr. Carol Dweck, Professor of Psychology at Stanford University and

author of Mindset: The New Psychology of Success, you are greater able to achieve your

potential if you have a “growth mindset,” being that of a person who is resilient and who thirsts

for mastery. Dr. Dweck explains that kids should be praised for their effort, not for their

intelligence alone. She emphasizes a system based off of “learning reaction” which she

exemplified as asking, “What did you do?” and “What can we do next?” (Anderson, 2016). This

emphasis on learning reaction is exactly the kind Dr. Chatfield explains is demonstrated in video

games. A combination of both principles, the reward cycle of video games and the “growth
LEVELING UP 18

mindset,” would better stimulate the development of children and adolescents in society and

could potentially prove beneficial in fields outside of adolescent development.

Conclusion

While many people seek to find a conclusive answer to the question of whether video

games are beneficial or harmful to adolescent development, the truth is more complex than any

singular answer can afford. While it is true that several studies have proven beneficial effects of

video games, it is equally true that an identical number of studies have been published providing

concrete evidence for the opposite conclusion. In the end, the best answer lies in the statement,

“it depends.” When comparing the statistical and logical determinations of several psychologists,

researchers, and scientists, the best results lie not with whether adolescents are exposed to the

right or wrong video games; rather, whether they are exposed in the right way. The effects of

video games depends mostly on application rather than content. As the majority of the benefits

stem from the reactionary skills taught by games, the content doesn’t necessarily affect the

development of the beneficial effects of video games. In contrast, the negative effects, primarily

aggression, could be triggered by violent content; however, it has been shown that video games

cannot generate violent behavior when experienced without some sort of predisposition to

violent tendencies such as mental illness or previous abuse. Because the content alone does not

determine which effects appear to the player, the true effects of video games on adolescents

would depend on how they are exposed to the content. Are they able to play video games in an

environment which teaches them proper morals and real-world consequences, or are they

allowed to foster unrealistic views of the world and possibly even violent thoughts? To properly

apply the benefits of video games to adolescents and society, they would need to be exposed to

the content in a safe environment in which they are made aware that virtual consequences differ
LEVELING UP 19

from real-world consequences, and one in which they realize the difference between virtual and

real-world moral actions (such as non-violence).

LEVELING UP 20

References

About ESRB. (n.d.). Retrieved December 18, 2018, from Entertainment software rating

board website: http://www.esrb.org/about/

Adachi, P. J.C., & Willoughby, T. (2012, December). More Than Just Fun and Games:

The Longitudinal Relationships Between Strategic Video Games, Self-Reported Problem

Solving Skills, and Academic Grades. Retrieved from Springer Science+Business Media

website: http://externalfile:drive-

476fb379c8041ee07216e03b705254b653c7e057/root/More_Than_Just_Fun_and_Games

_.pdf

Andersen, J. (2016, January 12). The Stanford professor who pioneered praising kids for

effort says we've totally missed the point. Retrieved December 21, 2018, from Quartz

website: https://qz.com/587811/stanford-professor-who-pioneered-praising-effort-sees-

false-praise-everywhere/

Ashcroft v. ACLU, No. 03-218 (June 29, 2004). Retrieved from

https://www.oyez.org/cases/2003/03-218

Bavelier, D. (2012, November 19). Your brain on video games [Video file]. Retrieved

from

https://www.ted.com/talks/daphne_bavelier_your_brain_on_video_games?utm_campaign

=tedspread&utm_medium=referral&utm_source=tedcomshare

Bavelier, D., & Green, C. S. (2011). Brains on video games. Nature Reviews

Neuroscience. http://doi.org/10.1038/nrn3135

Brown, A. (2017, September 11). Younger men play video games, but so do a diverse

group of other Americans [Fact sheet]. Retrieved December 21, 2018, from Pew
LEVELING UP 21

Research Center website: http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2017/09/11/younger-

men-play-video-games-but-so-do-a-diverse-group-of-other-americans/

Brown v. Entertainment Merchants Association, No. 08-1448 (June 27, 2011). Retrieved

from https://sks.sirs.com/webapp/article?artno=0000316635&type=SYL%20MAJ

Chatfield, T. (2010, November 3). 7 ways games reward the brain [Video file]. Retrieved

from

https://www.ted.com/talks/tom_chatfield_7_ways_games_reward_the_brain?utm_campai

gn=tedspread&utm_medium=referral&utm_source=tedcomshare

Child Online Protection Act, XIV U.S.C. § 1402 (Nov. 19, 1998). Retrieved from

https://www.epic.org/free_speech/censorship/copa.html

Coyne, S. M., Stockdale, L., Linder, J. R., Nelson, D. A., Collier, K. M., & Essig, L. W.

(2017, January 9). Pow! Boom! Kablam! Effects of viewing superhero programs on

aggressive, pro-social, and defending behaviors in preschool children [PDF]. Retrieved

from

https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/7c3e/3ddc288896381bb370729607f306b7726795.pdf?_

ga=2.160035645.1691433776.1545154837-1284342579.1542822397

Ferguson, C. (2018, November 2). [E-mail interview by the author].

Gentile, D. (2011). Brains on video games. Nature Reviews Neuroscience. http://doi.org/

Han, D. H., & Renshaw, P. F. (2011). Brains on video games. Nature Reviews

Neuroscience. https://doi.org/10.1038/nrn3135

Joeslin. (2011, September 16). An inspirational teacher's story of making learning fun.

Retrieved December 21, 2018, from http://www.gamification.co/2011/09/16/an-

inspirational-teachers-story-of-making-learning-fun/
LEVELING UP 22

Legislative search results [Fact sheet]. (n.d.). Retrieved December 19, 2018, from

Library of Congress website:

https://www.congress.gov/search?q={%22source%22:%22legislation%22,%22search%2

2:%22Video%20Games%22}&searchResultViewType=expanded&pageSize=250

Meese v. Keene, No. 85-1180 (Apr. 28, 1987). Retrieved from

https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/481/465/

Merzenich, M. (2011). Brains on video games. Nature Reviews Neuroscience.

http://doi.org10.1038/nrn3135

Miller, C. (n.d.). Do video games cause ADHD. Retrieved November 30, 2018, from

Child Mind Institute website: https://childmind.org/article/do-video-games-cause-adhd/

Nelson, C. A., Ihori, N., Bushman, B. J., Rothstein, H. R., Shibuya, A., Swing, E. L., . . .

Saleem, M. (2010). Violent video game effects on aggression, empathy, and pro-social

behavior in eastern and western countries: A meta-analytic review [PDF]. Retrieved

from

https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/1473/368b4b11cb038fe9ed0753dd70d6e035d2c4.pdf?_g

a=2.63183919.1691433776.1545154837-1284342579.1542822397

Pagliarini, R. (2011, June 2). Carol Dweck: Change your mindset to fulfill your potential.

Retrieved December 21, 2018, from CBS News website:

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/carol-dweck-change-your-mindset-to-fulfill-your-

potential/

The Protect Children From Video Game Sex and Violence Act, H.R. 669, 108th Cong.,

1st Sess. (as introduced, Feb. 11, 2003). Retrieved from

https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/BILLS-108hr669ih/pdf/BILLS-108hr669ih.pdf
LEVELING UP 23

Six kinds of screen violence - and how children respond [Fact sheet]. (n.d.). Retrieved

December 18, 2018, from Center for Media Literacy website:

http://www.medialit.org/reading-room/six-kinds-screen-violence-and-how-children-

respond

Stone, G. R. (2010, November 10). Video games and free speech. Retrieved December

18, 2018, from National Constitution Center website:

https://constitutioncenter.org/blog/video-games-and-free-speech

Strasburger, V. C., Jordan, A. B., & Donnerstein, E. (n.d.). Children, adolescents, and the

media: health effects. In Pediatric clinics of north america [PDF]. (Reprinted from

Elsevier, 59(3), 2012)

Thierer, A. D. (2003, June 24). Regulating video games: Must government mind our

children? Retrieved December 18, 2018, from CATO Institute website:

https://www.cato.org/publications/techknowledge/regulating-video-games-must-

government-mind-our-children

A Timeline of Video Game Controversies. (n.d.). Retrieved November 21, 2018, from

National Coalition Against Censorship website: https://ncac.org/resource/a-timeline-of-

video-game-controversies

Zichermann, G. (2011, June 1). How games make kids smarter [Video file]. Retrieved

from https://www.ted.com/talks/gabe_zichermann_how_games_make_kids_smarter/up-

next