Which statement about video games and aggressive behavior is supported by research quizlet?

Recommended textbook solutions

Myers' Psychology for AP

2nd EditionDavid G Myers

900 solutions

Consumer Behavior: Buying, Having, Being

13th EditionMichael R Solomon

449 solutions

Social Psychology

10th EditionElliot Aronson, Robin M. Akert, Samuel R. Sommers, Timothy D. Wilson

525 solutions

Myers' Psychology for the AP Course

3rd EditionC. Nathan DeWall, David G Myers

955 solutions

Recommended textbook solutions

Myers' Psychology for the AP Course

3rd EditionC. Nathan DeWall, David G Myers

955 solutions

Myers' Psychology for AP

2nd EditionDavid G Myers

900 solutions

Social Psychology

10th EditionElliot Aronson, Robin M. Akert, Samuel R. Sommers, Timothy D. Wilson

525 solutions

Consumer Behavior: Buying, Having, Being

13th EditionMichael R Solomon

449 solutions

Recommended textbook solutions

Tonal Harmony, Workbook

8th EditionByron Almen, Dorothy Payne, Stefan Kostka

1,387 solutions

The Language of Composition: Reading, Writing, Rhetoric

2nd EditionLawrence Scanlon, Renee H. Shea, Robin Dissin Aufses

661 solutions

U.S. History

1st EditionJohn Lund, Paul S. Vickery, P. Scott Corbett, Todd Pfannestiel, Volker Janssen

567 solutions

Ways of the World: A Global History

3rd EditionRobert W. Strayer

232 solutions

Terms in this set (33)

There are many pros and cons of playing video games. Of course, It depends on the type of game that is being played, but video games often improve our ability to reason and solve problems, and they educate and teach individuals about important life skills (teamwork, prioritizing, etc.) However, too much video-gaming could lead to addiction, and in some cases, aggressive and violent behavior.
For several years, video games have distracted players from their personal, real-life issues and created and improved friendships amongst them. Also, video games have improved their mood and decreased their stress. In the P.B.S. NewsHour video, the teenaged interviewees spoke about and disagreed with the stigma surrounding video games. They agreed that video games are a release for them; video games help relieve their frustrations and anger when gaming. I agree with them; I believe that video games help players cope with their stress. I've been playing video games of all genres since I was a child. When I was younger, and even today, whenever I'm upset, mad, and so on, I'll turn to a video game. The type of game will vary; I could play Animal Crossing or a first-person shooter game, but afterwards, I'll feel content. Additionally, there are games being developed to improve brain health. According to U.C. San Francisco (U.C.S.F.), video games, like Adam Gazzaley's Neuro Racer and Body Brain Trainer (B.B.T.), are being created to support treatment of brain disorders such as A.D.H.D., Autism, Depression, Anxiety Disorders, Multiple Sclerosis, Parkinson's and Alzheimer's Disease. These video game solutions could replace drugs to improve brain health and they'll allow individuals to perform at the highest level of their ability. Furthermore, video game players are now being accepted into universities with an athletic scholarship that could cover half of a student's annual tuition, room, and board. The C.B.S. This Morning video reported on Robert Morris University and the nineteen thousand dollar athletic scholarship that they're offering to several gamers. In the video, they classified video games as an athletic sport because they teach strategy, teamwork, and you usually accomplish a goal. I understand that video games, like League of Legends, can be competitive like sports, but they're incomparable to contact/physical sports. Months and years of practice and physical training go into sports. Although students are being rewarded a scholarship for college, I believe that it's somewhat promoting inactivity and addiction, which is mentioned in the T.E.D.x Talks.
In the T.E.D.x Talks, the speaker, Cam, discussed how video games can affect school grades, job retention, career aspiration(s), and marriages. Also, while playing video games (usually those that are rated Everyone 10+, Teen, Mature 17+, and Adults Only 18+), we are exposed to violence. Gaming is a male-dominated space, and in many video games, women are being used almost as background decoration. Violent depictions of women being beaten, raped, run over by cars, and more are present in video games. I believe that this problem is not as prominent as it was a few years ago, but it's still an issue that men don't want to address nor acknowledge (this can be seen in the likes to dislikes ratio and the comments section on the A.B.C. News video). I've always noticed this issue while playing video games, but never understood why women are mistreated in some video games, just so the protagonist could have a heroic/victorious ending. Moreover, for years, people have been placing the blame on violence in media, specifically in video games, for tragic events (for example, mass shootings). According to the P.B.S. NewsHour video, it's possible that the violence within video games could increase aggressive behavior in players, and make them numb to the pain and suffering of others. Although video games may cause some aggressive behavior, I don't believe that they would cause someone to commit a crime. The violence in video games are a norm amongst people; we accept violence as a part of life since we're so exposed to it. When playing a violent game, like Call of Duty, players usually ignore the violence, and play for fun.

On Sunday, June 13th 1971, the New York Times published a report that would change history.
Their source was Daniel Ellsberg, a military analyst working for the government. And the report, which would soon become known as the Pentagon Papers,
included top secret and incriminating information about the Vietnam War.
Between 1967 and 1969,
Ellsberg worked on a classified project for the government called United States Vietnam Relations 1945-1967, a study prepared by the Department of Defense.
The Pentagon Papers were not a good look for the United States government.
Ellsberg's research showed that there were many military miscalculations, and even flat out lies told
by politicians about US involvement in Vietnam.
But why did Ellsberg decide to leak the papers to the New York Times?
While working on the project, he realized he no longer supported
the Vietnam War and thought it was unwinnable.
In October of 1969, concerned that the public was being lied to, he began photocopying the report. He leaked some documents to members
of Congress, but none of them went public. So in 1970, Ellsberg leaked portions to the New York Times and the Washington
Post. The Pentagon Papers reveal that the government had been involved in Vietnam through several
presidencies, unbeknownst to the American people.
As early as 1950, the Truman administration gave military aid to France against the Viet Minh.
In 1954, President Eisenhower sent aircraft and military assistance
to Vietnam. By that time, the US was covering 80%
of France's military expenses in Indochina.
President Kennedy adopted a policy
of broad commitment to the war in Vietnam, even though the American
people had been told US involvement would be very limited. Then President Lyndon B Johnson waged military operations
against North Vietnam.
He began planning war in 1964,
a full year before the depth
of US involvement was revealed
to the public.
In 1971, when the New York Times broke
the story, President Nixon quickly
obtained a court injunction
from a federal judge in New York,
stopping the Times from printing
any more articles.
He argued that publishing
the Pentagon Papers would limit
the president's ability to guard
national security.
The Times adhered to the restraining
order, but they filed an appeal.
Meanwhile, Katharine Graham,
head of the Washington Post,
started publishing articles
about the Pentagon Papers instead.
Nixon tried to stop the Post as well,
but unlike the judge in New York,
the DC judge refused to issue
an injunction.
This allowed the Post to continue
publishing about the secret report.
The inconsistency between the Post
and Times cases quickly
brought both papers to trial
in the Supreme Court.
The Court decided that
under the freedom of press,
the government did not
have a strong enough case
to censor the press.
Nixon lost the fight and the articles
were printed.
Ellsberg was still indicted
under the Espionage Act
for leaking government secrets.
He could have been sentenced to 115
years in prison, but the charges
were dropped after evidence
of governmental misconduct
came to light.
Although the Pentagon Papers did not
include any details on Nixon's conduct
in Vietnam, the president
was embarrassed by the publications.
He subsequently sought to discredit
Ellsberg by using a team he
called "plumbers."
They broke into Ellsberg's
psychiatrist's office to try to uncover
embarrassing or harmful
information that might make
Ellsberg look bad.
This was the same group of burglars
who'd become famous for their role in the Watergate scandal.
It didn't work. Ellsberg was free, and together with the New York Times, set a new precedent for the press, a responsibility to tell the truth, even if it means publishing classified documents.
- Pentagon Papers case held up unconstitutionality of prior restraint, unless publication threatened national security.

Freedom of speech has its limits.
Those limits were tested
in New York Times Company versus Sullivan.
In 1960, a civil rights organization took out
a full page advertisement in the New York Times.
The advertisement detailed a "wave of terror"
perpetrated by civil rights opponents.
Amongst other horrors, the advertisement
accused the Alabama police department
of terrorizing student protesters.
In particular the advertisement claimed
police had padlocked the students' dining hall
"in an attempt to starve them into submission".
The problem was that the advertisement
contained a number of factual inaccuracies.
The Alabama police never padlocked
the student dining hall and several other statements
in the advertisement were either false or exaggerated.
The advertisement offended L. B. Sullivan
who served as the Montgomery commissioner of public affairs.
Sullivan felt that the advertisement
harmed his reputation because it was his job
to supervise the police department.
Sullivan sued the New York Times
in Alabama State Court for libel,
which is the legal term for defamatory speech
published in writing.
The trial judge applying Alabama law determined
that the advertisement was libelous per se,
which meant that Sullivan didn't have to show
actual harm to his reputation to recover damages.
The jury rendered a verdict for Sullivan
and the judge ordered the New York Times
to pay Sullivan $500,000 in damages.
The Alabama Supreme Court affirmed the judgment
rejecting the New York Times' argument
that the First Amendment protected it from liability.
The New York Times petitioned
the United States Supreme Court for review.
The court granted cert to consider the question
of whether the First Amendment allows
a public official to bring a defamation action
for false statements about public issues.
The Court unanimously held that the First Amendment,
which applied to Alabama through the 14th Amendment,
restricts a trial court's ability
to award damages in defamation actions
brought by public officials.
Justice Brennan wrote the majority opinion.
Brennan showed that case precedents
establish a firm commitment to robust,
uninhibited debate on public issues.
Brennan explained that often public debates
will feature "vehement, caustic,
"and sometimes unpleasantly sharp attacks
"on government and public officials".
Those debates may even include false information.
But the First Amendment allows for all kinds of speech,
even speech that is antagonistic and untruthful.
The United States belief in free speech
is so strong, in fact, that the law prefers
factual errors over discouraging free discussion.
Brennan noted that the threat of an expensive
civil lawsuit can handicap free expression
just as much as criminal punishment.
However the Court carved out an important exception.
If a public official can show
that a false statement was made with actual malice,
then the official can prevail on a defamation claim.
To show actual malice an official must prove
that the defendant knew the statement was false
or otherwise acted with reckless disregard
of the statement's truth or falsity.
Reviewing the evidence, Brennan concluded
that the New York Times didn't know
that the advertisement contained inaccuracies.
Therefore the Times hadn't acted maliciously
against Sullivan and couldn't be held liable
for defamation.
The Court reversed the judgment
of the Alabama Supreme Court.
Justices Black and Goldberg wrote
separate concurring opinions
each joined by Justice Douglas.
Justice Black agreed that the press was protected
from defamation claims brought by public officials.
But Black argued for extending
the immunity even further.
He wrote that the press's First Amendment right
was absolute and unconditional.
In Black's view, the Constitution should shield
the press from defamation claims by public officials,
even if the press acts with actual malice.
Justice Goldberg concurred in the judgment.
Like Justice Black, Goldberg also rejected
the majority's exception for statements
made with actual malice.
Goldberg agreed with Black that the press's
First Amendment privilege was absolute,
even if criticisms are made maliciously.
New York Times Company versus Sullivan
is important because it established the requirement
of actual malice in defamation suits
brought by public officials.
To be clear, this standard only applies to claims
arising from speech about public officials.
The actual malice rule does not apply to speech
directed toward private individuals.
The significance of Sullivan
has only grown in recent years.
Communications technology, particularly the Internet,
has increased the scope of debates on public issues.
These important debates are protected and encouraged
by the Court's landmark decision in Sullivan.
- This case established the standard of Actual Malice for public figures to win a defamation case.

While playing video games (usually those that are rated Everyone 10+, Teen, Mature 17+, and Adults Only 18+), we are exposed to violence. Many people who work on video games believe that violent portrayals in video games are socially harmful because they strengthen the idea that violence is the solution to problems (Turow 418). According to the P.B.S. NewsHour video, it's possible that the violence within video games could increase aggressive behavior in players, and make them numb to the pain and suffering of others. Gaming is a male-dominated space, and in many video games, including Grand Theft Auto, women are being used almost as background decoration. Violent depictions of women being beaten, raped, run over by cars, and more are present in video games (A.B.C. News).

Students also viewed

What can be said about video games and aggressive behavior quizlet?

What is the relationship between video games and aggression?

What are the effects of video games on aggression?

Which of the following is important features of the definition of aggression quizlet?