Video Games Have No Impact on Players’ Views of Women

Video games are huge. Globally, gaming now grosses more money than the movie industry, more than the music industry, more than all North American professional sports leagues combined—and almost as much as television. Consequently, gaming affects how players, mostly men, view the world. Some video games—among them Last of Us and Horizon Zero Dawn—include strong, resourceful female characters who take care of themselves while deftly dispatching adversaries. But many games still present women as little more than scantily-dressed objects of male lust. Which raises a question: Do video games encourage sexism and misogyny? Recently, in an analysis of 18 studies, an international team of researchers found that video games do not contribute to sexism or misogyny.

War on Women?

Critics of video games insist that most promote prejudices against women. They cite games in which women appear as only victims of violence, or as prostitutes (such as in the Grand Theft Auto franchise), or as damsels in distress in need of rescue (as in Zelda). Critics also cite lawsuits filed by women employed by gaming companies that accuse them of gender discrimination and routine sexual harassment based on a “frat boy” culture, with men at all levels disparaging women and possibly participating in “cube crawls” that involve alcohol-fueled sexual obnoxiousness.

Two dozen studies have explored the social impact of sexualized video games on players. Some have found that they do encourage misogyny. But others have shown otherwise. A recent meta-analysis of 18 studies not only exonerated video games from accusations of social harm, but also identified significant researcher bias in previous studies that called games sexist and misogynist.

No Significant Influence on Gender Attitudes or Behavior

Every year for the past decade, around three-quarters of Americans age six to 50 have played video games, usually on phones. In the early years of video games, almost all players were male. Today, men account for only 59 percent of gamers, as increasing numbers of women embrace gaming. Some game commentators predict that video games will soon reach gender parity. If that’s true, then critics’ claims of sexism and misogyny would potentially identify a threat to the self-esteem and well-being of increasing numbers of women.

In the meta-analysis, the researchers used standard statistical techniques to investigate the impact of sexualized video games on players’ mental and emotional well-being and attitudes toward women. As men’s gaming time increased, the analysis found no significant movement toward greater sexism/misogyny. And as women’s gaming time increased, they showed no significant deterioration of well-being or self-esteem. In other words, sexualized video games may seem psychologically damaging, but in fact, appear to be socially and psychologically benign.

The researchers also ranked all 18 studies based on their scientific rigor—how many “best research practices” they included. The studies incorporating the fewest best research practices were the most likely to conclude that video games contribute to misogyny. As studies’ rigor increased, they were less likely to find games to be misogynistic. In other words, some authors of the studies in the meta-analysis started out with anti-gaming biases, and their conclusions erroneously affirmed them.

The meta-analysis team concluded: “However offensive video games may be to many people, our analysis shows they do not harm players’ well-being or contribute to sexism or misogyny.”

New Media, New Moral Panic

The controversy over sexualized video games is nothing new. Throughout history, whenever new entertainment media have become popular, critics have charged that they promote violence or sexism/misogyny. And every time, the best studies have shown critics’ fears to be unfounded.

Consider television violence. During the first half of the 20th century, movies and pulp fiction included violence, but few people got upset. Then around 1950, the first television stations began broadcasting, and by 1960, almost every American home had a TV. Television brought unprecedented amounts of violence into the nation’s living rooms. Critics predicted that childhood exposure to all that mayhem was sure to warp young men and push them into violent crime. For a while, that prediction appeared prophetic. Starting in the late 1950s and continuing into the 1970s, youth crime soared, and “juvenile delinquency” became a national concern. Conservative religious and political leaders agitated for legislation to minimize TV violence. But by the 1970s, it became clear that television had not caused the surge in juvenile delinquency. The cause was the enormity of the Baby Boom generation. Young Baby Boom men comprised a record share of the population. During their most crime-prone years, age 15 to 25, there were so many young men that violent crime soared. Subsequent generations have had fewer children per capita—meaning fewer young men, comprising a smaller proportion of the population. Some committed crimes, but as the proportion of young men in the population declined, the number of violent crimes fell. In recent decades, despite more TV channels showing more violence than ever, the crime rate has declined substantially. Today no credible authority blames youth violence on TV.

Consider pornography. During the first half of the 20thcentury, pornographic films were available only at a modest number of porn theaters, and few people got upset. But starting around 1975, videocassette players brought porn into America’s living rooms, and after 1995, the Internet brought it to personal computers and phones—often for free. Porn viewing soared. Critics railed that this contributed to sexism, divorce, sexual assault, erectile dysfunction, and teen sexual irresponsibility. But rigorous studies have thoroughly debunked all those allegations. (See my posts from 2009, 2016, 2019, 2019, and 2021.) Porn disgusts many people, but the best evidence shows that it does not cause significant social harm.

Bias Essential Reads

How the "IKEA Effect" Turns Our Labor Into Love

Who Are Mental Health Services Made For?

Now the spotlight is on video games. Once again, cultural conservatives have accused them of causing social harm. And once again, robust research shows those allegations to be mistaken.

How Does Media Actually Affect Us?

Some media messages have a substantial impact on beliefs and behavior—for example, advertising. If ads didn’t work, marketers would not spend billions on them. But many media messages have little or no social impact. TV commercials during professional football games sell oceans of beer. But despite all the violence on television, TV doesn’t “sell” violent behavior, fortunately. Conclusion: Some media messages affect people’s beliefs and actions, but others don’t.

Most messages embedded in entertainment media have little or no impact on beliefs and behavior. When the Roadrunner smashes Wile E. Coyote over the head with a sledgehammer, viewers do not grab a hammer and look for a target. The messages in video games fall into the same category. Like cartoons, the games are fantasies, not marching orders. The meta-analysis shows that playing video games does not affect sane people’s beliefs or behavior in ways that threaten women.

Media messages are not destiny; they’re tools. Not every tool accomplishes every job. Social conservatives believe that exposure to any mass media with objectionable content leads to belief in that content, and that such believing automatically propels people into antisocial action. That’s simply not true. Many video games may disparage women—while leaving players’ beliefs about women unaffected.