Rhetoric & Technical Communication
Rhetoric & Technical Communication
Toscano, Aaron, Ph.D., Associate Professor, Dept. of English

Resources and Daily Activities

  • Dr. Toscano’s Homepage
  • ENGL 2116-083: Introduction to Technical Communication
    • ENGL 2116 sec. 083 Major Assignments (Summer 2020)
      • Final Portfolio Requirements
      • Oral Presentations
    • June 11th: Continue with I, Robot
    • June 15th: Ethics and Perspective Discussion
      • Ethical Dilemmas for Homework
      • Ethical Dilemmas to Ponder
      • Mapping Our Personal Ethics
    • June 16th: More on Ethics
    • June 1st: Effective Documents for Users
    • June 2nd: Final Project and Research Discussion
      • Epistemology and Other Fun Research Ideas
      • Making Résumés and Cover Letters Better
      • Research
    • June 3rd: Technology in a Social Context
    • June 8th: Information Design and Visuals
    • June 9th: Proposals, Marketing, and Rhetoric
    • May 18th: Introduction to the course
    • May 19th: Critical Technological Awareness
    • May 20th: Audience, Purpose, and General Introduction
    • May 21st: Résumé Stuff
      • Making Résumés and Cover Letters More Effective
      • Peter Profit’s Cover Letter
    • May 25th: More Resume Stuff
    • May 26th: Plain Language and Prose Revision
      • Euphemisms
      • Prose Practice for Next Class
      • Prose Revision Assignment
      • Revising Prose: Efficiency, Accuracy, and Good
      • Sentence Clarity
    • May 27th: More on Plain Language
    • May 28th: Review Prose Revision
  • ENGL 4182/5182: Information Design & Digital Publishing
    • August 21st: Introduction to the Course
      • Rhetorical Principles of Information Design
    • August 28th: Introduction to Information Design
      • Prejudice and Rhetoric
      • Robin Williams’s Principles of Design
    • Classmates Webpages (Fall 2017)
    • December 4th: Presentations
    • Major Assignments for ENGL 4182/5182 (Fall 2017)
    • November 13th: More on Color
      • Designing with Color
      • Important Images
    • November 20th: Extra-Textual Elements
    • November 27th: Presentation/Portfolio Workshop
    • November 6th: In Living Color
    • October 16th: Type Fever
      • Typography
    • October 23rd: More on Type
    • October 2nd: MIDTERM FUN!!!
    • October 30th: Working with Graphics
      • Beerknurd Calendar 2018
    • September 11th: Talking about Design without Using “Thingy”
      • Theory, theory, practice
    • September 18th: The Whole Document
    • September 25th: Page Design
  • ENGL 4183/5183: Editing with Digital Technologies
    • Efficiency in Writing Reviews
    • February 17th: Verb is the Word!
    • February 24th: Coordination and Subordination
      • A Practical Editing Situation
    • February 3rd: I’m in Love with the Shape of You(r Sentences)
    • January 20th: Introduction to the Course
    • January 27th: Rhetoric, Words, and Composing
    • Major Assignments for ENGL 4183/5183 (Spring 2021)
  • ENGL 4275: Rhetoric of Technology
    • April 13th: Authorities in Science and Technology
    • April 15th: Articles on Violence in Video Games
    • April 20th: Presentations
    • April 6th: Technology in the home
    • April 8th: Writing Discussion
    • Assignments for ENGL 4275
    • February 10th: Religion of Technology Part 3 of 3
    • February 12th: Is Love a Technology?
    • February 17th: Technology and Gender
    • February 19th: Technology and Expediency
    • February 24th: Semester Review
    • February 3rd: Religion of Technology Part 1 of 3
    • February 5th: Religion of Technology Part 2 of 3
    • January 13th: Technology and Meaning, a Humanist perspective
    • January 15th: Technology and Democracy
    • January 22nd: The Politics of Technology
    • January 27th: Discussion on Writing as Thinking
    • January 29th: Technology and Postmodernism
    • January 8th: Introduction to the Course
    • March 11th: Writing and Other Fun
    • March 16th: Neuromancer (1984) Day 1 of 2
    • March 18th: Neuromancer (1984) Day 2 of 2
    • March 23rd: Inception (2010)
    • March 25th: Writing and Reflecting Discussion
    • March 30th & April 1st: Count Zero
    • March 9th: William Gibson’s Neuromancer (1984)
  • ENGL 4750-090 & ENGL 5050-092 Video Games & Culture
    • Assignments for Video Games & Culture
    • August 25th: Introduction to the Course
    • November 10th: Aggression & Addiction
    • November 3rd: Moral Panics and Health Risks
    • October 13th: Narrative, ludology, f(r)iction
    • October 20th: Serious Games
    • October 27: Risky Business?
    • October 6th: Hyperreality
    • September 1st: History of Video Games
    • September 22nd: Video Game Aesthetics
    • September 29th: (sub)Cultures and Video Games
    • September 8th: Defining Video Games and Critical Theory Introduction
      • Marxism for Video Game Analysis
      • Postmodernism for Video Game Analysis
  • ENGL 6166: Rhetorical Theory
    • April 13th: Umberto Eco & Jean Baudrillard
    • April 20th: Moving Forward on Theory
    • April 27th: Last Day of Class
    • April 6th: Lyotard’s The Postmodern Condition
      • What is Postmodernism?
    • February 10th: St. Augustine, On Christian Doctrine [Rhetoric]
      • Oratory and Argument Analysis
    • February 17th: Knoblauch on Magical and Ontological Rhetoric
    • February 24th: Rene Descartes’ Discourse on Method
    • February 3rd: Aristotle’s On Rhetoric Books 2 and 3
      • Aristotle’s On Rhetoric, Book 2
      • Aristotle’s On Rhetoric, Book 3
    • January 13th: Introduction to Class
    • January 27th: Aristotle’s On Rhetoric Book 1
    • March 16th: Friedrich Nietzsche
    • March 23rd: Mythologies and Meaning of Meaning (part 2)
    • March 30th: Derrida’s (refusal to have) Positions
    • March 9th: Mary Wollstonecraft’s A Vindication of the Rights of Women
    • Rhetorical Theory Assignments
  • LBST 2212-124, 125, 126, & 127
    • August 21st: Introduction to Class
    • August 23rd: Humanistic Approach to Science Fiction
    • August 26th: Robots and Zombies
    • August 28th: Futurism, an Introduction
    • August 30th: R. A. Lafferty “Slow Tuesday Night” (1965)
    • December 2nd: Technological Augmentation
    • December 4th: Posthumanism
    • November 11th: Salt Fish Girl (Week 2)
    • November 13th: Salt Fish Girl (Week 2 con’t)
    • November 18th: The Hitchhiker’s Guide to the Galaxy (Part 1)
      • More Questions than Answers
    • November 1st: Games Reality Plays (part II)
    • November 20th: The Hitchhiker’s Guide to the Galaxy (Part 2)
    • November 6th: Salt Fish Girl (Week 1)
    • October 14th: More Autonomous Fun
    • October 16th: Autonomous Conclusion
    • October 21st: Sci Fi in the Domestic Sphere
    • October 23rd: Social Aphasia
    • October 25th: Dust in the Wind
    • October 28th: Gender Liminality and Roles
    • October 2nd: Mary Shelley’s Frankenstein
    • October 30th: Games Reality Plays (part I)
    • October 9th: Approaching Autonomous
      • Analyzing Prose in Autonomous
    • September 11th: The Time Machine
    • September 16th: The Alien Other
    • September 18th: Post-apocalyptic Worlds
    • September 20th: Dystopian Visions
    • September 23rd: World’s Beyond
    • September 25th: Gender Studies and Science Fiction
    • September 30th: Mary Shelley’s Frankenstein
    • September 4th: Science Fiction and Social Breakdown
      • More on Ellison
      • More on Forster
    • September 9th: The Time Machine
  • LBST 2213/HTAS 2100: Science, Technology, and Society
    • December 10th: Violence in Video Games
    • December 15th: Video Games and Violence, a more nuanced view
    • December 1st: COVID-19 facial covering rhetoric
    • December 3rd: COVID-19 Transmission and Pandemics
    • December 8th: 500-word Essay
    • November 10th: Planet of the Apes. (1964) Ch. 27-end
    • November 12th: Frankenstein (1818) Preface-Ch. 8
    • November 17th: Frankenstein (1818) Ch. 9-Ch. 16
    • November 19th: Frankenstein (1818) Ch. 17-Ch. 24
    • November 3rd: Planet of the Apes. (1964) Ch. 1-17
    • November 5th: Planet of the Apes (1964) Ch. 18-26
    • October 13th: Collins & Pinch’s The Golem at Large (Technology), Ch. 5 and 6
    • October 15th: Collins & Pinch’s The Golem at Large (Technology), Ch. 7 and Conclusion
    • October 1st: The Golem at Large Introduction & Ch. 1
    • October 22nd: The Time Machine
    • October 29th: H.G. Wells and Adaptations
    • October 6th: Collins & Pinch’s The Golem at Large (Technology) Ch. 2
    • October 8th: Collins & Pinch’s The Golem at Large (Technology), Ch. 3 & 4
    • September 10th: Science and Technology, a Humanistic Approach
    • September 15th: Collins & Pinch’s The Golem (Science), Ch. 2
    • September 17th: Collins & Pinch’s The Golem (Science), Ch. 3 and 4
    • September 22nd: Collins & Pinch Ch. 5 & 6
    • September 24th: Collins & Pinch Ch. 7 & Conclusion
    • September 29th: Test 1
    • September 8th: Introduction to Class
  • New Media: Gender, Culture, Technology (Spring 2021)
    • February 16: Misunderstanding the Internet
    • February 23rd: Our Public Sphere and the Media
    • February 2nd: Introduction to Cultural Studies
    • January 26th: Introduction to New Media
    • Major Assignments for New Media (Spring 2021)
  • Science Fiction in American Culture (Summer I–2020)
    • Assignments for Science Fiction in American Culture
    • Cultural Studies and Science Fiction Films
    • June 10th: Interstellar and Exploration themes
    • June 11th: Bicentennial Man
    • June 15th: I’m Only Human…Or am I?
    • June 16th: Wall-E and Environment
    • June 17th: Wall-E (2008) and Technology
    • June 18th: Interactivity in Video Games
    • June 1st: Firefly (2002) and Myth
    • June 2nd: “Johnny Mnemonic”
    • June 3rd: “New Rose Hotel”
    • June 4th: “Burning Chrome”
    • June 8th: Conformity and Monotony
    • June 9th: Cultural Constructions of Beauty
    • May 18th: Introduction to Class
    • May 19th: American Culture, an Introduction
    • May 20th: The Matrix
    • May 21st: Gender and Science Fiction
    • May 25th: Goals for I, Robot
    • May 26th: Isaac Asimov’s I, Robot
    • May 27th: Hackers and Slackers
    • May 30th: Inception
  • SEACS 2021 Presentation
  • Teaching Portfolio
  • Topics for Analysis
    • American Culture, an Introduction
    • Feminism, An Introduction
    • Frankenstein Part I
    • Frankenstein Part II
    • Futurism Introduction
    • Langdon Winner Summary: The Politics of Technology
    • Marxist Theory (cultural analysis)
    • Oral Presentations
    • Our Public Sphere
    • Postmodernism Introduction
    • Protesting Confederate Place
    • Punctuation Refresher
    • QT, the Existential Robot
    • Religion of Technology Discussion
    • Rhetoric, an Introduction
      • Analyzing the Culture of Technical Writer Ads
      • Rhetoric of Technology
      • Visual Culture
      • Visual Perception
      • Visual Perception, Culture, and Rhetoric
      • Visual Rhetoric
      • Visuals for Technical Communication
      • World War I Propaganda
    • The Great I, Robot Discussion
      • I, Robot Short Essay Topics
    • The Rhetoric of Video Games: A Cultural Perspective
      • Civilization, an Analysis
    • The Sopranos
    • Why Science Fiction?
    • Zombies and Consumption Satire

Contact Me

Office: Fretwell 280F
Phone: 704.687.0613
Email: atoscano@uncc.edu
LBST 2213/HTAS 2100: Science, Technology, and Society » December 10th: Violence in Video Games

December 10th: Violence in Video Games

Don’t forget you have Weekly Discussion Post #13 due Friday, 12/11, at 11:00pm.


Plan for this Topic

I’m very interested in video games as representations of broader culture. I’m so interested, in fact, that I wrote a book on video games that was published earlier this year. That book’s second chapter was completely devoted to debunking the myth that playing violent video games leads to real world violence. Normally, I wouldn’t come right out and say exactly what I believe on a controversial subject; instead, I’d go through the process of how to understand the subject. I will still explore with you why I conclude the way I do, but, so there’s no doubt where I stand, let me reiterate this:

Absolutely no evidence exists to support the conclusion that playing violent video games (or consuming violent media) leads a viewer to commit real world violence.

Before moving onto the readings, I want to throw some things at you that might suggest consuming violent media leads to real world violence. The rest of this page will cover “evidence” that attempts to support such a claim. December 15th’s class will have evidence and arguments that call such a claim into question. Read the articles first, and then watch the videos I link to. Because I’ve done so much research on this topic, I’ll offer additional resources you can go to for you own personal interest. I will specify which videos will show up on the Final Exam. All the notes are fair game for the Final Exam, but only the readings in the syllabus (on Canvas) will be on the Final Exam. The other readings I link to are to support the claims I make or for more information.

Violence in Video Games and Real-World Violence

The articles I asked you to read are only part of the story on attempts to establish (and point out flaws in such attempts) a link between exposure to violent video games and aggressive behavior. I don’t expect the sample to end the discussion on this topic; instead, I expect the discussion that comes from the articles to help guide us in asking questions. We’ve talked quite a bit about peer-review and scientific/expert opinions this semester. In this topic, there are clearly authorities at odds with one another, thus, limiting any chance at concluding based on simply going with the authority on the matter.

As you reflect on these articles, consider what you’ve been told about violent video games (or violent media in general) and the effects they supposedly have on viewers—adults and children. I wonder what even motivates these studies. After all, if researchers can never control for the influence they have on the subjects they observe, how might a hypothesis, such as, “Violent video game exposure likely leads to real-world aggression,” bias the study?

The first two articles try to establish a causal link between violent video game play and real-world aggression. The first is a peer-reviewed article and the second filters discussions of “what the experts say.” Refer to the reading and your own observations and think critically based on your reasoned perceptions of how technology mediates behavior. What might our cultural studies lens bring to this discussion? Additionally, consider the audience and purpose of the different texts. Could assumed audience have an effect on how or what information is presented? Obviously, the answer is “yes,” but what is the effect(s)?

By the way, this webpage has an example of a study using a “noise blast test.”

Important Definitions

  • Violent media: “depict characters intentionally harming other characters who presumably wish to avoid being harmed” (p. 1068, para 2)
  • Aggression: “behavior that is intended to harm another person who is motivated to avoid that harm….it is not an emotion, thought, or intention” (p. 1068, para 2)
  • Violence: “the most extreme form of physical aggression, specifically physical aggression that is likely to cause serious physical injury” (p. 1068, para 2)

The above definitions all come from Anderson et. al. “Longitudinal Effects of Violent Video Games on Aggression…”.

Question to Lead Off

Think back to the experiments on memory transfer and worms from the very beginning of the semester (your Final Exam might have a few questions on that study). Why were those experiments never decisively confirmed?

As you reflect on these video game articles, consider what you’ve been told about violent video games (or violent media in general) and the effects they supposedly have on viewers—adults and children. I wonder what even motivates these studies. After all, if researchers can never control for the influence they have on the subjects they observe, how might a hypothesis, such as, “Violent video game exposure likely leads to real-world aggression,” bias the study?

Pause on that question for a moment, and think about all the factors that need to be controlled for in order to make a causal link between violent video game exposure leading to real-world violence (not just aggression defined above but the most severe form of aggression). Below is a graph on the rate of crime (violent ) in the United States:

If the video game Mortal Kombat came out in 1992, and crime has plummeted…well, let’s read a bit more. I certainly don’t want to bias you for or against this topic.

Anderson, Craig A. et. al. “Longitudinal Effects of Violent Video Games on Aggression…”

Obviously, Anderson believes there’s a link between habitual video game violence exposure (HVGV) and proclivity to be aggressive in the real world. As we discuss, be able to point to places in the reading when you make comments or ask questions about Anderson’s (and the other two articles’) conclusions or steps to those conclusions. Maybe we’re all just avatars in a huge video game…

  • P. 1067, para 5: “Habitual violent video game play early in the school year predicted later aggression…”
    • Define habitual. Why would habitual practices be more worrisome to researchers than casual practices?
  • P. 1067, para 6: “As a whole, the research strongly suggests reducing the exposure of youth to this risk factor.”
    • Is this conclusion arguable?
    • What other types of exposure do authorities (of all kinds) try to limit when it comes to children?
  • P. 1068, para 1: “If playing violent video games has harmful effects on some portion of players, then the vast majority of American youth are highly exposed to an unnecessary risk factor.”
  • P. 1068, para 3: Studies show “playing a violent video game causes an immediate increase in aggressive behavior, aggressive thoughts, and aggressive emotions”
  • P. 1068, para 3: Studies also show “clearly link violent video game play to high levels of aggression and violence in real world contexts”
    • What would it take to convince you that something has proven its link “clearly”?
  • P. 1068, para 5: interactive nature of video games a concern for researchers
  • P. 1070, para 5: Boys more likely to play violent video games than girls
    • What’s the significance in this gender observation?
  • P. 1070, para 5: “previous research that shows that the best predictor of future aggression is history of past aggression”
  • P. 1070, para 5: The idea that children are naturally aggressive is wrong
  • P. 1070, para 6: “That both cultures yielded significant longitudinal effects of approximately the same magnitude illustrates the power of violent video games to affect children’s developmental trajectories in a harmful way”
    • Why is this conclusion significant for a journal named Pediatrics?
  • P. 1071, para 4: “Youth violence is a public health issue in the United States, because it accounts for so many deaths”
  • P. 1071, para 5: “such extreme violence is relatively rare in the age groups we studied (relative to milder forms of physical aggression)”
  • p. 1071, para 5: “physical aggressiveness in youth is 1 of the largest risk factors for later violence,” and understanding “youth aggression is vitally important if we are to understand and reduce violence in modern society.”
    • P. 1071, para 5: goal is to reduce violence in modern society

I think the rhetorical goal the authors have for the final paragraph is to juxtapose violent video games and violence in society. Unfortunately, they don’t provide a link. Do video games where one competes with friends (or online trolls) make people angry and aggressive? I have anecdotal evidence that competition increases aggression, but these authors haven’t established an empirical link that violent video games lead to real world violence.

However, this is peer-reviewed research, and other outlets pick up on the topic without scrutinizing the finding the way we will.

Harvard Health Publications. “Violent Video Games and Young People”

This article is an attempt to explain the debate surrounding the link between playing violent video games and real world violence. The first sentence, which is a summary of the articles, claims experts are divided but insists that children can be protected if parents are vigilant. Although you have read it, without even reading the rest of it, what is the goal of the article, and what do you think motivates the author (someone or group affiliated with Harvard Medical School)?

  • “One View” para. 1: “The AAP policy describes violent video games as one of many influences on behavior, noting that many children’s television shows and movies also contain violent scenes”
    • Of course, video games are seen as more harmful…why?
  • “One View” para. 2: Who could argue with the observation “that children observing, mimicking, and adopting behaviors”
  • “One View” para. 3: “some casual observers go further, assuming that tragic school shootings prove a link between such games and real-world aggression”
    • Pause on that statement. What/who is a casual observer, and why would the author include such a statement?
    • Remember, you’re not just reading for content but to follow the argument and reflect on what could be motivating the authors and the rhetoric of the article.
  • What’s going on with the table from PEW Internet & American Life Project (Sept. 2008)?
    • Is it parallel? It’s part of a larger survey, but they chose those three statistics to show.
    • In case you want to read the whole study (it’s long, so don’t do it now), check out “Teens, Video Games and Civics”
  • “A more nuanced View,” para. 2: “many studies on the issue of media violence rely on measures to assess aggression that don’t correlate with real-world violence…many are observational approaches that don’t prove cause and effect”
  • “A more nuanced View,” para. 3: “violent video game use and school shootings…most of the young perpetrators had personality traits, such as anger, psychosis, and aggression, that were apparent before the shootings and predisposed them to violence”
  • “A more nuanced View,” para. 5: It depends on the individual’s personality whether or not he or she is likely to be more aggressive after playing violent video games, specifically neuroticism, disagreeableness, and low levels of conscientiousness.
    • By the way, wikipedia is a good place to start research, but don’t end your research their.
  • “What parents can do,” para. 1: “Parents can protect their children from potential harm from video games by following a few commonsense strategies…”
  • “What parents can do,” para. 2: “Parents can best protect their children by remaining engaged with them and providing limits and guidance as necessary”

What’s the actual goal of this article and how do the outside sources help accomplish this goal? This article isn’t peer reviewed, but it is authoritative and cites peer-reviewed research. Consider the audience: parents who are non experts.

Harding, Anne. “Violent video games linked to child aggression”

Think back to last week’s readings from Fox News and CNN on COVID-19 and masks. Holly Yan’s article on CNN.com reported on expert analysis. Yan, a journalist, interviewed and compiled a short article based on what scientific authorities told her. Although Yan’s article wasn’t anywhere near as thorough as a peer-reviewed article would be, she provided a good amount of evidence that met her audience’s expectations. She’s not a scientist communicating with other scientists. Instead, she’s a journalist writing for a general audience.

That same context–journalist writing to a general audience–matches Anne Harding’s article. The difference is that Harding focuses mainly on Craig A. Anderson’s longitudinal study of American and Japanese gamers, which you read for today. Harding does cite Dr. L. Rowell Huesmann, director of the Research Center for Group Dynamics at the University of Michigan’s Institute for Social Research in Ann Arbor and Dr. David Walsh, president of the National Institute on Media and the Family, but

She also cites Dr. Cheryl K. Olson, co-director of the Center for Mental Health and the Media at Massachusetts General Hospital, who claims, “We may find things we should be worried about, but right now we don’t know enough.” Olson still thinks children’s parents ought to “move the computer and gaming stuff out of kids’ rooms…so they can keep an eye on what their child is up to,” which implies she thinks violent media most likely causes aggression, but she just doesn’t feel there’s enough evidence for her to say so with any certainty. Consider these quotes from the article:

  • “…children who were exposed to more video game violence did become more aggressive over time than their peers who had less exposure.”
  • “The findings are “pretty good evidence” that violent video games do indeed cause aggressive behavior, says Dr. L. Rowell Huesmann.”
  • “There are definitely games kids shouldn’t be playing, [Dr. Cheryl K. Olson] said, for example those where hunting down and killing people is the goal.”
  • Dr. David Walsh concludes the article with these points:
  • “It doesn’t necessarily mean that because a kid plays a violent video game they’re immediately going to go out and beat somebody up.”
  • “The real impact is in shaping norms, shaping attitude. As those gradually shift, the differences start to show up in behavior.”

To Harding’s credit, she uses the word “aggression” in the title. Most readers aren’t going to think about the nuanced definitions Anderson et.al. have for aggression and violence. In general, the public will think aggression is verbal and lightly physical (pushing, spitting, and even pointing), and they’ll consider violence to be mostly physical (punching, kicking, stabbing, beating, etc.). The problem with Harding’s article is that she can’t ask the really probing questions; she reports what the experts say. I’m not claiming she’s NOT being an objective journalist; it’s the so-called experts who scapegoat video games and other violent media as causing real world violence who are unethical.

Perhaps Harding needed to talk to more researchers who call into question this specious link, such as our next authors. Harding’s article came out in 2009. Research from 2010-present has pretty much ended the debate, demonstrating that consuming violent media doesn’t make a person commit real world violence. I think the authors had something to say about aggression. I’ve seen people fight at sporting events when they’re caught up in cheering on their team and denigrating the opponents. I’ve seen friends fight after losing video games, boards games, races, and even significant others.

Humans are a violent, aggressive specious. We are driven by conquest and destruction (c.f. the environment). This behavior is as old as humanity. The first video game came out in 1962; the first commercially viable and popular games were really from the mid- to late-1970s. There’s no evidence that this less-than-sixty-year-old technology trumps the aggressive, violent nature of humanity. What’s easier to defend is that video games reflect a culture that likes to consume violence, a culture that likes domination. Humans have been developing weapons for millennia. We’ve also been inventing games to simulate violence. We just love violence.

Next Week

Finish reading the other video game articles, which are shorter, by next week. If we were face to face, Tuesday, 12/15 would be our last class.

Don’t forget to do Weekly Discussion Post #13 is due on Canvas by Friday, 12/11. Next week will be your final one. I hope to have the Final Exam opened up on Canvas later next week.

Skip to toolbar
  • Log In